[DC3] RES: Guadalajara Declaration and DC3 Report
luca.belli at fgv.br
Fri Nov 4 13:15:10 UTC 2016
Please, feel free to share the link with your colleagues. All comments are welcome.
However, given that the deadline to send our outcome paper to the IGF Secretariat is 10 November (originally, it was 1 November but I have already asked an extension to have some more time for discussion on list), I suggest we send the current version of the declaration (v.3.1 that includes Carlos’ comment) together with the report outlook, as a DC3 outcome document.
Then, we can use the last part of the day 0 event to discuss the text and incorporate further comments, including those shared by Raoul’s colleagues.
De: dc3-bounces at listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces at listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Raoul Plommer
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 4 de novembro de 2016 04:09
Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3 at listas.altermundi.net>
Assunto: Re: [DC3] Guadalajara Declaration and DC3 Report
The declaration looks good to me. Carlos' point seems valida as well and we should take heed.
Can I show this link (URL) text to some of my contacts just to have some more people to review it? Namely, I'm thinking of some of Pirate contacts who might have some valuable input.
I am sorry I have not been more active recently, but I am coming to the IGF and will attend day 0 with you. Hopefully getting a lot more done there. :)
On 4 November 2016 at 07:28, Nicolás Echániz <nicoechaniz at altermundi.net<mailto:nicoechaniz at altermundi.net>> wrote:
I agree with Carlos on this.
On 11/04/2016 01:57 AM, Carlos Rey-Moreno wrote:
> Dear Luca, thank you very much for all you work on the declaration and
> the report.
> The declaration does not incorporate the concern I raised about the
> first sentence of the preamble ( "Over three billion people do not have
> access to communication infrastructure") being a potential source of
> discrediting the whole declaration as it is not accurate.
> While there is common agreement that there are only 3 billion people
> connected to (using) the Internet, that does not mean that they do not
> have access to communications. For instance, the ITU shows that
> coverage for both GSM and 3G networks is way beyond that number .
> Other reasons may explain this gap, affordability, lack of relevant
> content, confidence/skills, etc, but not lack of access. Thus, I
> propose, after the input from John Dada in the same email thread, to
> rephrase that sentence to:
> "Over four billion people may remain unconnected to the Internet,
> including around a billion who do not have access to basic telephony
DC3 mailing list
DC3 at listas.altermundi.net<mailto:DC3 at listas.altermundi.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the DC3