Thanks, Jane… I know some have included CNs and other types of service providers to be eligible to apply, but even then, some may not be successful in their application process. From what I have seen, in many cases that directly refers
to be able to demonstrate capacity and pass those processes (due diligence, risk assessment, compliance). What I was trying to say, is that generalizing is not very helpful, and maybe there is something that can be done to assist when they are applying, increasing
their chances to be successful and to map which USF are not “welcoming” to CN applications, or is that information already collated somewhere?
Regards,
Sylvia
________________________________________________________________________
Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net |
http://www.apnic.foundation
ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 |
http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia |
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
* Love trees. Print only if necessary.
From: dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net <dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
Date: Tuesday, 1 December 2020 at 3:33 pm
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community Networks increase Internet connectivity
Many govts are changing USF to include smaller nets or CNs, given the challenges with the old rules as you note well…
We can put some examples together.
From:
<dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net> on behalf of Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net>
Reply-To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
Date: Monday, November 30, 2020 at 8:04 PM
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community Networks increase Internet connectivity
A lot of USFs have very strong rules / guidelines -for good reason- that are imposed at higher levels of government, that make it very difficult for them for a long time to be able to spend it.
If a CN is not legally registered or can’t pass a minimum of due diligence and risk assessment they access to funds will always be limited. We had some interesting examples of folks that seem like established
organizations that didn’t have organizational bank accounts but were still using personal banking (just as a basic example). That also applies for the allocation of spectrum, other licenses and authorizations, etc.
Anyone allocating funding or technical resources (government programs, donors, investors) to support infrastructure deployment and service to the community is accountable (to the tax payers, the investors, to
their board, to their members, etc) so CNs -and the organizations that are supporting them- should focus some energy and resources to develop their capacity to be able to pass with flying colours those processes of due diligence, to be able to get funding
/get resources allocated, etc.
Building organizational capacity to be able to manage funding and operations (either grants, investments, sponsorships) is critically important.
It will be really good to look at concrete examples of CNs that have tried to apply to any of this, against criteria and due diligence requirements to see how the collective experience from this group can support
them to be successful in attracting funding and grow, for the benefit of the community they serve.
Regards,
Sylvia
________________________________________________________________________
Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net |
http://www.apnic.foundation
ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 |
http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia |
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7
3858 3199
* Love trees. Print only if necessary.
From: dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net <dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
Date: Tuesday, 1 December 2020 at 12:48 am
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community Networks increase Internet connectivity
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 6:27 PM Jane Coffin <coffin@isoc.org> wrote:
Would love to share some thoughts on this.
We see the need for change across reg/pol regimes in general (for all nets and for more agility).
Key issues for CNs and for more net small/medium/large net roll out:
-USF and funding: USF was originally a subsidy pulled from users to build out fixed and mobile nets (later). Much of that funding did not go into rural, remote, and urban nets that needed it.
(not a well researched comment: Telecom companies in some countries advanced a position that the USF contributions largely came from Telecom revenues, hence the beneficiaries of the USF should also be Telecom
companies. Even if they did not quite ask for a sort of "cash back" at least they would have taken a position that they should have a say on what direction the USF takes. If this is plausible, then it is likely that proposals to fund small, medium and community
initiatives for rural broadband would have suffered set backs.
The old model is not agile and does not support complementary nets like Community Nets. We are seeing some countries lead the way for change to use USF for CN, IXP, and other smaller nets. Funding models in gen from some donors needs to address small and medium sized nets and ways to promote sustainable development. Small start-ups need more training to absorb funding. Same with some medium-sized nets.
-Spectrum – need to look at more innovative use of spectrum: Shared use, secondary use, direct allocations and changing mindsets without suggesting wholesale change that panics most reg/pol-makers
Why not pitch for Spectrum Allocation Classes? 70% could be commercial allocation and 30% for non-commercial and minimally-commercial community allocation?
-Licensing/authorizations: Lighten up the rules to allow for faster deployments, allow for deployments, allow for faster trenching of fibre, and allow for trenching by non traditional operators. You would be surprised at the challenges that exist for CNs, Co-ops in the municipal regs
For local and rural networks, the licencing could be nearly automatic, except for uncomplicated, almost automatic authorizations (unless there is something extraordinarily suspicious about the applicant).
Luca/Nico – Is there a chance we could have a DC-3 video meet-up in early 2021 to share some great learning/info?
I thought the IGF meet-ups were great, but it would be good to have more time together!
Be well
From: <dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net> on behalf of Sylvia Cadena <sylvia@apnic.net>
Reply-To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
Date: Sunday, November 29, 2020 at 8:51 PM
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community Networks increase Internet connectivity
Not sure how CN can be “free” from the Telecom model (which I am not sure it can be generalized that much… ISPs, mobile operators, satellite and submarine cable companies business models are quite different). It will be great to learn how you define it.
CNs are getting their Internet connectivity from someone and have a responsibility to provide services to their communities, so even if they operate under a different / innovative / ethical / purpose driven business model and under supportive regulatory provisions, they are part of an ecosystem. That ecosystem could really benefit from a call for action from CNs to look at how it can still be possible to define a business model that is guided by purpose and ethics over one based on profit and greed.
I am curious about what the DC members have discussed around the access initiatives that content providers and social media platforms are heavily investing in -which are linked to their suits of products, content and tools- and if they see that new business model for global delivery but centralized in US companies will favour -or not- CNs in particular?
I have not read the link from the article Bob shared below, but will do… thanks for sharing. Always interested to read your analysis.
Regards,
Sylvia
________________________________________________________________________
Sylvia Cadena | APNIC Foundation - Head of Programs | sylvia@apnic.net | http://www.apnic.foundation
ISIF Asia, WSIS Champion on International Cooperation 2018 & 2019 | http://www.isif.asia | FB ISIF.asia | @ISIF_Asia | G+ ISIFAsia |
6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 | +10 GMT | skypeID: sylviacadena | Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199
* Love trees. Print only if necessary.
From: dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net <dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
Date: Sunday, 29 November 2020 at 1:26 am
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community Networks increase Internet connectivityBob,
In addition to that, the participants of this Coalition may also have far reaching ideas on potential of the Community Networks model to benefit from what starts as a connectivity initiative, to further evolve in creative ways to strengthen the communities in multiple ways, by way of collaborating to raise standards of education, significantly improve social and economic well being, and the potential by inter-community and global interaction. This might happen in two dimensions: 1) better connectivity paves way for better collaboration within and across communities. 2) If the communities come together to build networks, they could also come together to bring about innovations in agriculture, education and local business.
On Sat, Nov 28, 2020 at 8:46 PM <dc3@bob.ma> wrote:
I strongly agree with being free of the telecom model. I’m planning to post this more widely soon – https://rmf.vc/IEEE5GPast. We need to think about infrastructure rather than networking as a service.
Bob Frankston
From: dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net <dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net> On Behalf Of sivasubramanian muthusamy
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2020 09:02
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community Networks increase Internet connectivity
In providing inputs with success stories, the DC could also emphasize that the CNs would thrive far better in their non-traditional model, free of the patterns of the telecom regulatory model.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 10:23 PM Luca Belli <luca.belli@fgv.br> wrote:
Hi Carlos,
Thanks for sharing this!
Indeed I uploaded the contributions more than one month ago but it really took weeks to have them displayed on the contributions page you shared!! I received a confirmation email but I checked several times the ITU website and it is the first time I am seing them displayed!!
Great mystery...
I think another easy way to contribute would be for ISOC regional bueraus to use the regional CN reports we drafted as contributions. @Jane Coffin do you think you colleagues can submit the LatAm and Africa reports as contributions? The LatAm is below. Cannot find the African report Carlos drafted. Are there other reports?
Best
Luca
Luca Belli, PhD
Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation
+55 21 3799 5763 t@1lucabelli
Praia de Botafogo, 190 13º andar
Botafogo - Rio de Janeiro, RJ - CEP: 22250-900
De: dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net <dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net> em nome de Carlos Rey-Moreno <carlos.reymoreno@gmail.com>
Enviado: sexta-feira, 27 de novembro de 2020 07:01
Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
Assunto: Re: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community Networks increase Internet connectivity
Hi everyone, great to see the contribution from DC3 already listed in the submissions made to this process! https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-sep2020.aspx
Also some other colleagues have contributed too! Thanks all! I would encourage anyone from the list to make a submission as well, so the voices from the CN movement are heard by the ITU and balance the voices of those that do not want CNs to thrill. Just by reviewing the submission from GSMA https://www.itu.int/en/Lists/consultationSep2020/Attachments/9//GSMA%20Contribution%20to%20CWG-Internet%20-%2013.08.2020.pdf , one can read:
"Community Networks are a specific solution to often unique geographical, commercial, and/or logistical challenges in delivering connectivity, strongly depending on engaged individuals. These unique characteristics are limiting their scalability and applicability as a general policy mechanism to expand internet access to over 600 million people. Regulations and supporting policies should equally empower community networks and operators in ways that do not impair connectivity expansion initiatives through large-scale commercial networks, for example, by carefully assessing the risk of underusing scarce spectrum resources set aside for community networks."
Deadline is 15th December.
best,
carlos
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 09:56, Carlos <carlos@apc.org> wrote:
Hi everyone,
After all the noise some of us have made at national, regional and
international Internet Governance spaces, it looks like the ITU Council
wants to hear directly “How can small/community/non-profit operators
help in promoting the increase of Internet connectivity?”
This poses an unique opportunity to showcase directly to the ITU Council
all the amazing work that most of you are doing, specially at times
where CNs are gaining more and more visibility to curve the digital
divide and rural marginalization that is now more and more apparent due
to the pandemic. And I say directly because this request is made through
one of the very few consultations the ITU open to all stakeholders: the
Open Public Consultation of the Council Working Group on International
Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet). I provide a bit of
background about it below for those who are interested.
The consultation is structured as a set of questions, one of them the
one included above, available in the following link:
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-sep2020.aspx
where you can also find important information and instructions on the
submission process.
I think it is strategically important that the ITU receives as many
contributions from each of us as possible highlighting the many
different ways community operators help in promoting the increase of
Internet connectivity. This will surely contribute in creating a more
policy and regulatory environment for community networks in each of your
countries.
I’ve copied some of the basic instructions to participate below.
Participating can be as easy as forwarding existing text you may have
written (the GISWatch country report for those of you who wrote it:
https://www.giswatch.org/community-networks) to the email address below.
Note that your online submission can be drafted in a UN language other
than English (these are Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish),
but you are encouraged (not obliged) to provide a translation in English
for the benefit of all readers.
At APC we are available to provide support to any of you wanting to make
a submission but struggling with the process. Please do not hesitate to
reach out to me directly.
Best,
carlos
== Basic instructions ==
You can include your responses to the questions into the online form in
the following link :
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/form-oct2019.aspx OR
send it to InternetPublicViews@itu.int including your Full Name, Title,
Country and Organization you are representing.
Your response will then be published on the ITU Website:
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-sep2020.aspx
Please include each submission also includes a short summary/abstract
(1-3 paragraphs). This will form part of the final summary document to
be published after the end of the physical open consultation meeting.
== Background ==
ITU Council Working Groups
There are different Working Groups set up to provide input to the ITU
Council in different matters. In the last last Council Group (February,
2020) meeting four appeared to be active [1]:
- Council Working Group on International Internet-related Public Policy
Issues (CWG-Internet)
- Council working group on Child Online Protection (WG-CP)
- Council Working Group on WSIS (WG-WSIS)
- Council Working Group on Financial and Human Resources (CWG-FHR)
The participation in those working groups varies and some are for
Members States (MS) only, others allow for the participation of Sector
Members (too).
CWG-Internet is limited to Member States, but they hold an open
consultation to all stakeholders. This poses one of the few
opportunities for Civil Society Organizations that are not Sector
Members of the ITU to present their views to the ITU Council. In most
other ITU’s consultations, organizations such as the Association for
Progressive Communications and the Internet Society, both with Sector
Member status do their best to bring the voice of the Civil Society in
general, and of community networks in particular to these spaces.
In particular, CWG-Internet is tasked to identify, study and develop
matters related to international Internet-related public policy issues
and to disseminate its outputs throughout ITU's membership, as well as
to report annually to the Council on activities undertaken on these
subjects [2] [3].
The 13th Session of the ITU Council Working Group on International
Internet-related Public Policy Issues (CWG-Internet) decided on 20
September 2019 to hold an open consultation (online and physical) on
“International internet-related public policy issues on harnessing new
and emerging telecommunications/ICTs for sustainable development” where
some of our contributions provided already content in relation to
community connectivity [4].
In the 13th Session it was also decided that the next round of Open
Consultations (February 2020 – August 2020), on the topic of “Expanding
Internet Connectivity” with the questions below: [5]
Expanding Internet Connectivity
- What are the challenges and opportunities for expanding Internet
connectivity, particularly to remote and under-served areas? What are
the roles of governments and non-government actors in overcoming these
challenges?
- Are there particular challenges facing land-locked countries in
securing affordable Internet access? What can be done to overcome these
challenges?
- How can small/community/non-profit operators help in promoting the
increase of Internet connectivity?
[1] https://www.itu.int/en/council/Pages/groups.aspx
[2] https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/default.aspx
[3] https://www.itu.int/md/S19-CL-C-0136/en
[4]
https://www.itu.int/en/council/cwg-internet/Pages/consultation-oct2019.aspx
[5]
https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/19/rclintpol13/c/S19-RCLINTPOL13-C-0013!!MSW-E.docx
--
Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD
Local Access Policy and Regulation Coordinator
Association for Progressive Communications
https://www.apc.org/en/project/connecting-unconnected-supporting-community-networks-and-other-community-based-connectivity
Cel: +27 (0) 76 986 3633
Skype: carlos.reymoreno Twitter: Creym
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3@listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
--Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD
"Community and Local Access Networks" Project Coordinator
Association for Progressive Communications
https://www.apc.org/en/project/local-access-networks-can-unconnected-connect-themselvesCel: +27 (0) 76 986 3633
Skype: carlos.reymoreno Twitter: Creym_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3@listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3@listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3@listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
