Just to follow up the mail I sent yesterday, here are some challenges and
suggestions that has been presented on the ICOM-L:

A) Can more up-to-date and extensive use of electronic media make ICOM
economically more efficient and more democratic?:

Roger Smith: "ICOM as communicating organisation is 'miles behind the
times'. There are
some NET efforts such as this list that are commendable, but in the main,
new technologies are rarely embraced with any sense of direction or purpose,
and often belatedly.."

OK, Roger, what should ICOM do, not to be miles behind the times?

Leonard Will: "Now that the Internet makes it possible for many people to
communicate
quickly, easily and cheaply, it should be possible to reduce the number
of meetings that people have to attend in person.
I know that some people do not yet have convenient access to email, but
in most cases it would be cheaper to provide that to them than to pay
the costs of international travel and accommodation."

Do we agree with Leonard and reduce the number of meetings and rather use
funds to buy e-mail equipment for those who haven't?

Ralf Blank: ".. the Internet would be the best way to make a transparent
structure and
democratic organisation. This concept must work with a *corporate identity*
and modern-sized webdesign on the world-wide ICOM sites and a powerfull team
of creative colleguages in central *ICOM Internet staff*"

How do we build a corporate identity and a powerful team of creative collegues?

Martin Segger: "The ICOM committee system, as presently constituted,
does not reflect the reality of a networked world, nor that of an
increasingly multi-tasked and fluid museum profession."

What constitutes such a reality? How can we deal with such a reality?

B) Then about the personal economies and possibilities of taking on offices
in ICOM:

Patrick Boylan: "It was felt that one of the most serious - and distorting
- aspects of the
current situation is that only members with either personal wealth or
financial support from their own government or institution can run for
office within ICOM at ANY level.  ICTOP considered that this has profound
implications in relation to democracy within the organisation."

Roger Smith:  "the same criticism could be directed to the inequitable
funding received
from Paris for Chairmen and officer bearers in International or national
Committees. I know from first hand experience ( C & D above ) that if you
were from a smaller museum organisation, no supplementary funding was ever
available from Paris to carry out the the necessary tasks of travelling to
International meetings -as Chairman of that Committee. This resulted in one
having to spend considerable sums of personal finance to carry out ICOM
duties on behalf of the profession worldwide.

How do we go about solving this problem of inequity?

Patrick Boylan: "The ICTOP "SWOT"
analysis questioned the appropriateness, morality even, of subsidising the
registration fees in this way. This is something that seems to have crept
in to ICOM's Conference requirements without any debate or consideration
sometime after the 1983 London Conference (where record numbers turned up
even when charged more or less the full cost of the Conference through a
realistic conference fee - around US $250 - equivalent to at least $800
today).

Do you suggest that the fee for the General Conferences should not be
subsidised? If the answer is yes, the conference fee would of course be
much, much higher than now. Would the consequences of this be "democratic"?
For what purposes should then the hosts use the funding from their
government and other donors to? (I promised myself not to comment on the
statements, but I have to add something about your comments on the London
conference: London is the RELATIVELY cheapest flight destination after
possibly N.Y. in the world from anywhere in the world, as well as popular
with its multitude of museums. Plus have the majority of the ICOM members
in the nearby European countries. A considerably higher conference fee say
in Melbourne might have scared off quite a few participants).

Pat Reynolds: "If individual and institutional members were paying for
meetings, then
would they not feel more inclined to ensure that the meetings were of
good quality, and value for money?  (Goodness, what a Thatcherite view,
I can't believe I just typed that!)"

You did. I am not sure what you mean?

C) About the economy of national committees:

Roger Smith:  ".. insufficient resources are provided to develop and
sustain national
committees (with the possible exception of some developing countries)."

Are the economies of the national committees an important task for ICOM and
in what ways should ICOM support the national committees?

D) About corporate partnerships:

Roger Smith: "Corporate partnerships that might drag ICOM into the 1990's
seem few and
far between?  Several international comittees do sterling work in this
regard to support their meetings, but the same cannot be said with any
confidence of the central organisation."

What can ICOM centrally do to improve in this field?

The gentlemen above plus the rest of us 900-and-something on this List are
hereby challenged.

Kind regards


Per B. Rekdal
Museumsleder/Museum Director
Universitetets etnografiske museum
Frederiksgate 2, N-0164 Oslo, Norway

Tel. -47 - 22 85 99 64
Fax -47 - 22 85 99 60
E-mail: [log in to unmask]


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Change ICOM-L subscription options and search the archives at:
   http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/icom-l.html