These remarks are prefatory. Not in a way, I'd hope, that dictates the possible ensuing text, or, indeed, to indicate that any text might in fact follow. From the Hegelian refutation of the preface for a philosophical work, to the observation of Derrida that "Prefaces, along with forewords, introductions, preludes, preliminaries, preambles, prologues, and prolegomena, have always been written, it seems, in view of their own self-effacement"; through to his question via routes, marks, and erasure: "But does a preface exist?" [Derrida, Dissemination, Chicago, p9], we might be rightfully suspicious of the integrity of the prefatory comment, its allusion to a whole, its "residue" that will inform and tyrannise our reading of the "main" data, inscription. So, this is a warning. To myself, to the group as a whole. If we are looking for conclusions, for closure, we are sadly misguided. A conclusion would be absolutism: the consequences would be narrowness and inclusivity. Our responsibility is to question, to open our discussion to a wider audience, to create a space for poetic dialogue. We must accept that we will create nothing more than a preface, that the main text is unreachable, that it will always elude us. And this is desirable.

I'd like to suggest an expression for the occasion, one I've found useful over the years in such contexts: international regionalism. If globalism is about ironing out the differences on the level of the international marketplace structures and bureaucracy, an ism driven by a lust for markets and profits, international regionalism is the opposite. It is the process of opening international lines of communication while respecting regional integrity. Difference is good, desirable, and not the individual's to negate outside his or her own self and community. The World Wide Web has been friendly to international regionalists - one can retain a sense of place physically, and enter the international source of the net. But how international is it? Most people log on to sites in one language, and though all or most national languages have a presence, many dialects and hybridised tongues don't. And languages change and evolve; the movement is significant. How does the net cope with this? Of course, in itself, it doesn't. It is without ethics. Protocol, and the laws of individual countries and international law, might restrict certain contexts of availability, but ultimately it is the individuals, communities, groups, governments, religions, and so on, that constitute and direct it. The boundaries between different spaces are highly fluid - filters and firewalls are nominal infrastructural control. English is it at the core of the web - the colonising language to beat all colonising languages has found another power vehicle. Be wary of this? It goes hand in hand with decisions made on a global level within the United Nations and its affiliate organisations. Specific languages carry specific proto-cultural agendas. The international regionalist is aware of this, and moves through language barriers. I am not suggesting a hyperspatial Esperanto, but I am suggesting a non-monolingual approach to the issues of cooperation, sharing, and understanding.

International consensus is a variable in its effects. It can be oppressive, as in the case of the sanctions against Iraq, which work only in part in placing pressure on the cruel regime of Saddam Hussein, but work in entirety in oppressing the people, when it serves the interests of the majority to isolate and destroy a minority. It can be selective, when the environment is contaminated by greed and profit, such as the selective whaling ban that sees whales taken for research ending up on commercial production lines. It is also exclusive - recognised nation states having the only say, or cultural minorities having their say diluted through the process of departments, representatives, and collective voices. More optimistically, consensus can be used to insist a wrong is put to rights, or that the hypocrisy of one of the above examples might be put right. Looking to Lyotard we read:

Accepting that we should be suspicious of any declaration of a specific number of possible outcomes - two in this case - and also of any text that qualifies with 'men' instead of 'men/women' or 'people'; it is worth considering this statement carefully. If we are to accept the expression "Dialogue between cultures", which originally came out of the marginalising and culturally insensitive "Dialogue between civilizations", then we share territory with the point Lyotard makes about dialogue between individuals, or their representatives, and free will and knowing intellects. We are aware of the conditions of language and the social and cultural environments in which we operate. The dialogue is framed by variables that are recognisable. And our aim in coming together from various parts of the globe is to discuss issues relevant to language, to poetry, to the validity of 'presenting' poetry to an international or internationalised audience. We will attempt to find points in common and reach consensus, to mark the page, to mark space with our shared goals. I am sure we'd all agree that the outcome of such a course of discussion and epilogics is desirable.

However, we must be wary that the second possibility isn't in fact the outcome. In some ways it is the more likely. We talk about coordination, advocacy, missions, marketing, fund-raising, implementation plans, and reports to the Secretary-General of the United Nations; we talk about an internationalism using the net that relies on the sponsorship by countries operating within the selective consensus of self-interest, of profit, and the corporate colonisation that is globalisation. If not, we are at least skirting these territories. We run the risk of becoming that instrument that legitimises, which reinforces power structures we might wish to challenge as editors, as poets and writers.

A poet is not necessarily going to challenge a power structure, but I feel strongly that to evolve an ethical consciousness, we must place pressure on language, encourage its growth. It is clear that I feel the poet is obliged to challenge the centrality of the state, to challenge controls over free will and intellect. But these expressions themselves are the product of 'Western Civilisation' - of a culturally appropriative machine, a religion absorber, a product substituter, and above all else, a systemiser of patriarchy*. Most poetry canons are the extension of patriarchy. The poem is the body inscribed with codes of conduct. The four-line rhyming stanza, the Petrarchan sonnet, all control the corporeal shifts of information. We are obliged to test these forms - not to reject them, which would lose control of context, but to challenge and reinvent them. Recognise them for the controlling forces they are. Han-shan, poet of "The Cold Mountain", knew this twelve or thirteen hundred years ago, despising "regulated verse". The poems of this Buddhist monk recluse were collated from the page that is the tree, the wall. [see Henricks, The Poetry of Han-Shan, Albany, introduction]

Language is a most effective colonising force when used aggressively, but it is also a most liberating force. To articulate is to define self and community. As poets we should place pressure on language, to undermine it at the points where it has become a control factor. This is "linguistic disobedience". My call: REHABILITATION, PREVENTION, and a linguistic disobedience.

If we're aiming to utilise poetry as a means of cultural dialogue, we must consider its liminality - where it genre-shifts into prose, into other forms of expression. To isolate this dialogue to "pure" poetry, if such a thing exists, is to close off any number of possibilities. It is also culturally disrespectful: the poetic unit differs not only between languages and cultures, but also within languages and cultures themselves. We should also consider the place of visual art and music in this exploration. If we start prioritising art, it becomes just another commodity fetish.

To develop an international web portal for poetry is to open the possibility of religious and cultural offence. The words that liberate for one people may oppress another. The possibility of reply, of dialogue on the site, should be created. Nothing should be closed off. Copyright, for example, might be the writer's only defence against a loss of income and exploitation for a morally offensive purpose, but it is also the straitjacket that helps maintain and legitimise the system Lyotard notes. To control language is to empower oneself, the group, the nation, and increments of that. But to share and give language, to exchange language, is to create something far more respectful and liberating.

Apart from issues of respecting regional and personal integrity, the issue of how publications and ventures are funded is significant. As someone who deeply objects to the monetary market economy, I would ideally like these processes to be driven by good will, exchange, and community. Of course, this is just not going to happen. It's not the world we live in - yet, at least. My vegan anarchist pacifist small community barter-based hope is certainly not immediately at hand, though when one thinks about it, it is surprising how many communities within oppressive state structures still manage to operate in such ways in actuality, disguised by a veneer of participation within the nation. Anyway, given that money is going to be a factor, we must consider what kind of funding we can attract, and what kind of funding we want to attract.

The present Australian government's treatment of indigenous peoples in Australia is reprehensible - I certainly wouldn't fund a dialogue using their money. Not would I personally knowingly take money from companies exploiting animals. Some of you might. Is this a consensus question, with its obvious exclusivity, or is it a recognition that internationalisation is only achievable through an ongoing dialogue, a community of links if you like? There are major net spaces that bring together different literary journals, political and ethical groups, religious groups and so on. Maybe the word comparative could be used here. Do we want a controlling centre, or do we want many smaller centres, or better still, a series of fragments that are greater than the whole, that never really add up but are constantly discussing, disagreeing, exploring possibilities, accumulating small outcomes as an on-going process?

*The word patriarchy here is not used as part of an erasure of difference among experiences of women worldwide, but only to mean "the rule of the father.