[DC3] RES: Re: Future IGF Dynamic Coalition on Connected Communities

Hi all, It seems that I missed Ritu’s and Parminder’s emails. My apologies. So, we now have 4 co-coordinators including Nico, myself, Ritu and Parminder. This is excellent, as we also diversify georgapgically. Also, Parminder raised the issue of the name of the DC. So far, the proposal was DC on Connected Communities but Parminder proposes DC on Community Broadband. My preference would be to keep the original proposal precisely because it is more comprehensive. Broadband is an option of connectivity (broad bandwidth) and the very definition of what may be considered as ‘broad’ is not universal. It rather depends on national standards. Also, I think that DC on Connected Communities has the merit on focusing on people and stressing the importance/role of communities. What do others think? All the best Luca ________________________________ De: parminder [parminder.js(a)gmail.com] Enviado: quarta-feira, 18 de novembro de 2015 15:13 Para: Luca Belli Assunto: Fwd: Re: Future IGF Dynamic Coalition on Connected Communities Luca It seems you did not receive this expression of interest and a few questions.... So resending from gmail id... parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: Future IGF Dynamic Coalition on Connected Communities Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:15:39 +0530 From: parminder <parminder@itforchange.net><mailto:parminder@itforchange.net> To: Luca Belli <luca.belli@fgv.br><mailto:luca.belli@fgv.br>, dc3@listas.altermundi.net<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> <dc3@listas.altermundi.net><mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net>, bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com<mailto:bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com> <bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com><mailto:bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com>, lee.hibbard@coe.int<mailto:lee.hibbard@coe.int> <lee.hibbard@coe.int><mailto:lee.hibbard@coe.int>, Jamila Rodrigues Venturini <jamila.venturini@fgv.br><mailto:jamila.venturini@fgv.br>, ritu.sri@defindia.net<mailto:ritu.sri@defindia.net> <ritu.sri@defindia.net><mailto:ritu.sri@defindia.net>, otavio.vinhas@gmail.com<mailto:otavio.vinhas@gmail.com> <otavio.vinhas@gmail.com><mailto:otavio.vinhas@gmail.com>, catherine.middleton@ryerson.ca<mailto:catherine.middleton@ryerson.ca> <catherine.middleton@ryerson.ca><mailto:catherine.middleton@ryerson.ca>, janara.sousa@gmail.com<mailto:janara.sousa@gmail.com> <janara.sousa@gmail.com><mailto:janara.sousa@gmail.com>, edliano@hotmail.com<mailto:edliano@hotmail.com> <edliano@hotmail.com><mailto:edliano@hotmail.com>, plommer@gmail.com<mailto:plommer@gmail.com> <plommer@gmail.com><mailto:plommer@gmail.com>, donck@isoc.org<mailto:donck@isoc.org> <donck@isoc.org><mailto:donck@isoc.org>, vicentin@riseup.net<mailto:vicentin@riseup.net> <vicentin@riseup.net><mailto:vicentin@riseup.net>, yzdrrr@riseup.net<mailto:yzdrrr@riseup.net> <yzdrrr@riseup.net><mailto:yzdrrr@riseup.net>, bankston@newamerica.org<mailto:bankston@newamerica.org> <bankston@newamerica.org><mailto:bankston@newamerica.org>, foditsch@gmail.com<mailto:foditsch@gmail.com> <foditsch@gmail.com><mailto:foditsch@gmail.com> CC: nicoechaniz@altermundi.net<mailto:nicoechaniz@altermundi.net> <nicoechaniz@altermundi.net><mailto:nicoechaniz@altermundi.net> Luca I am happy to work with you on this, including if required with co-coordination.... In fact as a part of our current work on community braodband in India we have been proposing a coalition on community broadband and developing countries.... But this could be that space. Is there scope for discussing the name of proposed DC... I find connected communities a bit vague, and I think community broadband is rather more to the point. Connected communities connotes a much larger scop area, the kind of work for instance that we do in community informatics, and I am not sure we want the DC to spread itself that thin. In doing so it will lose focus form what independently is a very distinct and extremely important area of practise and policy right now. Other issue also is the role of private sector in this DC, hich unfortunately in the IGF space means big business and who are of course not at all well inclined to the very idea of community ownership of networks. In my conceptions of such ownership there is scope for private businesses working at the local level for actual implementations, although not necessarily. It depends on what model of community ownership different communities chose. But then in any case that private sector is never going to be able to reach the IGF spaces... Look forward to hear yours and other people's comments on this. parminder On Tuesday 17 November 2015 02:08 AM, Luca Belli wrote: Dear all, I hope you had nice trips back home after the IGF. (apologies for the long email) This is the first email to organise the future work of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Connected Communities. First of all a couple of words on what are IGF Dynamic Coalitions (DCs). Along workshops, DCs represent the structural elements of the IGF: they are self-organised, issue-specific groups comprising members of various stakeholder groups. The requirements for formulating a Dynamic Coalition: • An Action Plan • A mailing list • The contact person • Representatives from at least three stakeholder groups (i.e. Civil society; Private sector; Technical community; Academic community; Governments; Intergovernmental organisations) • Setting up a webpage or a blog is highly recommended. After the IGF workshop on Community Networks, you expressed your interest for the initiative. This email is to start discussing together how to shape our action plan. I have prepared this pad, so that everyone can make suggestions on what points should we focus on https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/dc_on_connected_communitieshttps://pu… Our goals could be the following (please do not hesitate to modify using the pad): * Identify good open-access readings that may be useful to communicate to non-techies what CN are and how do they work; * Mapping existing CN and try to foster communication amongst them; * Identify models of CN (e.g. rural CN, urban CN, etc.) and best practices that can make them particularly efficient and resilient both from a technical and organisational perspective; * Identify best practices and worst practices as regards national policies that facilitate or hinder the deployment of community networks. * Consolidate and publish all this ideas into some ‘Community Network Guidelines/Best practices’ to be presented at the next IGF and divulgated on the future DC3 website. Thanks to Nicolas, we already have a mailing-list! (many thanks Nicolas!!!) https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3 Besides English, I think it would be fair to allow people to communicate in Spanish or Portuguese in order to be as inclusive as possible. What do you think? The following persons expressed their interest in the DC3 (feel free to state to which IGF stakeholder group you would like to be associated): • Bob Frankston • Nicolás Echániz • Ritu Srivastava • Janara Sousa • Otavio Vinhas • Catherine Middleton • plommer@gmail.com<mailto:plommer@gmail.com> please state your name :) • edliano@hotmail.com<mailto:edliano@hotmail.com> please state your name :) • Lee Hibbard • Frédéric Donck • Diego Vicentin • Nathalia Foditsch • yzdrrr@riseup.net<mailto:yzdrrr@riseup.net> also please state your name :) • Luca Belli • Jamila Venturini • Kevin Bankston I would be honoured to act as contact person/coordinator and I would love if anyone else wanted to share this task with me as co-coordinator(s). Just to provide some info regarding myself, I have been participating to the IGF over the past 5 years, I have worked for the IGF Secretariat and I have funded/coordinated two DCs (DC on Net Neutrality and on Platform Responsibility). I was previously working for the Council of Europe Internet Governance Unit and I am now researcher at Center for Technology and Society at FGV, Rio de Janeiro. My work is to produce research advising policy people on how to take sustainable decisions. I look forward to hearing from you and feel free to share this email. All the best, Luca