[DC3] Thinking from the declaration... Was an Internet for the poor vs. empowering the people

Nicolás Echániz nicoechaniz at altermundi.net
Sun Nov 20 22:24:29 UTC 2016


Conraad,

There's food for thought in your ideas. We should organize them in a way
that allows the DC3 to act on them; at least on those we collectively
identify as important at the moment.


It's partly why I believe we must set a time aside during the IGF for
internal DC3 planning and discussion.


I believe we could create work groups to push forward the different
actions we identify as relevant.


I identify at least three big areas to keep developing:

1) keep making community networks visible in international (and
regional) events so their relevance in the evolution of the Internet can
grow over time.

2) identify, document and share in an organized fashion best practices
(both technical and organizational) for community networks deployment.

3) create reference regulation in relevant areas (spectrum, licencing,
peering, etc.) that we can push forward with governments and
intergovernmental organizations.


Each of these topics can spawn many initiatives.
If we could identify all the areas we as a group want to develop, we can
then go into detail, decide who wants to work on what and elaborate our
strategies, considering of course all the work we are already doing; not
reinventing the wheel.


Then again, this may be just my regular way of thinking and YMMV a lot!


Cheers,
Nico



On 11/20/2016 04:52 PM, Coenraad Loubser wrote:
> _How do we measure and avoid failure?_
> 
> 1. Besides the handful of great projects that some of us are involved in
> and has seen, we've all seen the failure:
> 
> a) regulation/government mandated "white elephant" computer labs and
> satellite connections that mostly go unused, that big providers have
> supplied to meet universal service license obligations
> b) or those installed by mismanaged universal service funds
> c) or those installed as "corporate social investment" schemes, for tax
> incentives
> d) or those installed purely for marketing - a "do good" story for some
> photos and a presentation or two to score points with a government or
> regulator
> e) or those installed because they are what someone thought is needed
> f) Large telco networks with services priced beyond the usablity of the
> majority of the population covered
> 
> 2. I'm sure there are many reasons - 
> 
> a) No community consultation and buy-in
> b) no co-creation
> c) lack of skills
> d) lack of access / guidance / materials / tangible benefits to community
> e) lack of supporting infrastructure
> f) lack of corporate incentive
> g) ufavorable social environment - eg. unsafe, abused, misused
> h) unprofitable (in the case of big telco network / extension thereof)
> 
> 3. And then there are the potentials solutions:
> 
> a) Starting with community education / making the community request /
> ask for it / earn it 
> b) establishing a long term relationship with the community
> c) empowering the community to build- and maintain it themselves
> d) ensuring utility by guiding the community to on-line solutions to
> their everyday problems
>  - and a shared place where common problems and solutions can be listed
> e) future tax incentives to corporates to make it worth as a long term
> investment
> 
> These are just off the top of my head. Coudn't such a declaration
> reference places to find common problems and solutions, and reference
> research on failed programmes and the critical parts of successful
> implementations - based on research that will be taken seriously.
> 
> 4) Imagine we could create an atmosphere where it is not seen as
> insulting to ask real questions at a presentation, or where it's not
> even necessary - where it is common sense what questions should be
> answered. An environment where no presentation that doesn't answer
> certain basic quetions, would ever be taken seriously. Perhaps a list of
> questions that could and should be answered in any presentation - or
> metrics that should be included, such as:
> 
> a) Live data and contact people on the ground - How many people are
> connected to it right now? 
> b) Let's do a video call to certain community members right now, and
> lets see the network stats.
> c) How long have they been connected?
> d) How much has been spent on the network?
> e) How was the hardware obtained? 
> f) Is vendor agnosticism promoted? 
> g) Ongoing costs - what does running the operation cost and where does
> the funding come from?
> h) How long before funding runs out / before it is self sustaining?
> i) What is the life expectancy of the hardware and technology used? 
> j) Does any institution which stands to economically benefit from the
> network, excercise control over training, initiation or landing page
> materials? 
> k) Is any privileged network metrics available? Ie. if Google or
> Facebook builds a network, even if they fund it - the data they collect
> should be in the public domain, because measurable knowledge about our
> access patterns is a public resource that if not made avaiable neutrally
> can benefit those with access to it disproportionately and lead to
> growing inequity. 
> 
> _Universal set of metrics?_
> 
> Shouldn't we perhaps aim toward seeing if there is a universal set of
> metrics or measurable parameters, that if a adhered to, significantly
> improves the probablity of success or the benefit to the community?
> Metrics such as cost of access being under a certain percentage of the
> average lowest income, or eqating to the cost of certain foodstuffs, or
> the lowest tolerable contention ratio for certain applications, or the
> number of years required for a community to be able to reap certain
> types of benefits - and how these may differ form country to country or
> community type to community type... how many usefully identifiable kinds
> of communities are there? Rural, urban, rural agricultural, rural
> migratory, ... 
> 
> Even though it may seem obvious what we want to achieve - perhaps it is
> important to check to see if all items on our wishlists are universally
> applicable. Ie. 
> How do we meaure success or failure? What's is the ultimate goal? More
> responsible citizens? More communicative neigbourly citizens? Better
> consumers? Better producers? More independence? More decentralization of
> the market? More street wise citizenry? Happier taxpayers? More
> successufl anarchists? A balance between a new global culture without it
> being at the expense of local traditions? Whichever way, how do we know
> that everything we are striving towards is unversally applicable to all
> these purposes?
> 
> Is connectivity ultimately purely in aid of a new supplementary global
> identity for us all? Or is it simply an amplifier and multiplier - of
> both good and bad things? And who are we to judge what is good and what
> is bad? What is the smallest component of each, and at what point does
> it creep into society - and isn't that the point where it is easiest to
> influence it? And if it is, is someone smarter than us doing just that? 
> 
> Think about how those who want to tell us what we should and shouldn't
> do started out, and who gave them their say and power... and what
> authority and incentive and purpose do they have doing what they are
> trying to? 
> 
> Anyways, just all some ideas thought out loud that I hope will give
> someone something to think about. 
> 
> Coenraad Loubser
> 
> Wireless Internet Services & Hardware (Pty) Ltd.
> 210 Long Street, Cape Town, 8001, ZA
> 
> Office: +27 21 481 1824
> Skype: Coenraad_Loubser
> Email: coenraad at wish.org.za <mailto:coenraad at wish.org.za>
> Cell: +27 73 772 1223
> Web: http://wish.org.za
> 
> -- Spending Money is like watering a plant.
> 
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Nicolás Echániz
> <nicoechaniz at altermundi.net <mailto:nicoechaniz at altermundi.net>> wrote:
> 
>     During my participatin in the WEF meeting that I was invited to, I came
>     up with this concept that I believe must be a strong point in our
>     strugle forward in order to differentiate what we are doing from so many
>     other initiatives to "connect the unconnected":
> 
>     Facebook's Free Basics and Internet planes, Google's Loon project as
>     well as many government plans to bring "Internet access" to public
>     spaces in poor villages and disadvantaged areas are all initiatives to
>     create an Internet for the Poor. One where the people get a second class
>     digital citizenship.
> 
>     On the other hand, we from the community networks movement are
>     empowering the people to build meaningful infrastructures that create
>     the local portion of the Internet in a manner that is respectful of
>     human value and not just motivated by access statistics or profit.
> 
> 
>     I'd like to make this idea part of our Declaration.
> 
> 
>     What do the rest of you think?
> 
> 
>     cheers,
>     Nico
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     DC3 mailing list
>     DC3 at listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3 at listas.altermundi.net>
>     https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
>     <https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DC3 mailing list
> DC3 at listas.altermundi.net
> https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
> 



More information about the DC3 mailing list