Tnx Jane, I had a similar thought....Although less frequent now,
'facilities regulation' used to be quite a popular telecom term
and will still probably ring too many regulatory bells,
considering the average age of a regulator:-). Perhaps we should
just call it 'infrastructure' - you need power and transport to
the same place as the router, so it's all the same anyway!
Mike
On 01/06/20 14:25, Jane Coffin wrote:
Just some food for thought.____
If you use the word facilities – you tie back to old regulatory
methods that regulated “facilities”.____
This might be far worse in some regulatory regimes and subject a
CN or small ISP to more onerous regulatory conditions.____
Network is a bit more flexible for some regimes/countries.____
__ __
__ __
__ __
*From: *<dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net>
<mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net> on behalf of
"dc3(a)bob.ma" <mailto:dc3@bob.ma> <dc3(a)bob.ma>
<mailto:dc3@bob.ma>
*Reply-To: *Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> <mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
*Date: *Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 2:36 PM
*To: *Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> <mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
*Subject: *Re: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community
Networks increase Internet connectivity____
__ __
The problem is that you can’t define the word “network” outside
of implicit contexts. At this point I think the word facilities
minimizes the semantic loading and allows us to talk about
networking as a way *we* use the facilities. The powerful idea is
looking at what we do with the facilities, including computer
networking and social networking, which we can own locally
without being told how to use it and without having to tithe a
provider. ____
____
Bob Frankston____
https://Frankston.com____
____
*From:* dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
<dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net>
<mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net> *On Behalf Of
*sivasubramanian muthusamy
*Sent:* Sunday, May 31, 2020 14:16
*To:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> <mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
*Subject:* Re: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how Community
Networks increase Internet connectivity____
____
____
____
Yes, Bob's point is valid as a general caution on the need to be
careful about the words we use, but "Network" is not really a
word that we can easily replace. If the danger lies in equating
Networks with "Telecom Networks" then, why not say "Community
Internet Networks" instead? Or, "Community Internet
Infrastructure" ? ____
____
____
____
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 8:53 PM Michael J. Oghia
<mike.oghia(a)gmail.com <mailto:mike.oghia@gmail.com>> wrote:____
+1 Bob, well said____
____
-Michael____
____
____
____
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 5:15 PM <dc3(a)bob.ma
<mailto:dc3@bob.ma>> wrote:____
If we are move forward we need to be very careful about
the words we use and, in particular, avoid the word
“network” because it has implicit semantic loading that
includes the business model of telecom.____
____
Instead we must talk about “community owned facilities”
since we do our own networking using our own apps and
devices.____
____
Notice DC3 doesn’t use the word “networks” which is a
setup in the right direction. But maybe if we want
further with “community owned facilities” we could make
it clear that we need enabling technology not just
“provided” services.____
____
This more about economics than technology that is what is
most worrisome to the ITU. As long as we accept that
connectivity is “provided” to “subscribers” will be
negotiating with the ITU rather empowering communities.____
____
Bob Frankston____
https://Frankston.com____
____
*From:* dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
<dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>> *On Behalf Of
*sivasubramanian muthusamy
*Sent:* Friday, May 29, 2020 05:43
*To:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net>>
*Subject:* Re: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input on how
Community Networks increase Internet connectivity____
____
What we call Community Networks is not what Telecom
companies would like to see become successful. If the
term "Community Networks" is hijacked, any diluted
definition + commercially beneficial architecture
supercedes the Community Network vision and a sub-telecom
architecture might get identified and promoted as a
"Community Network.."____
____
On Fri, May 29, 2020, 13:37 Carlos <carlos(a)apc.org
<mailto:carlos@apc.org>> wrote:____
Hi AmalI, ____
The G20 mentioned CNs indeed in its "COVID-19
Response Statement from the G20 Virtual Ministerial
Meeting" as one of the means to expand connectivity
“Furthermore, digital capacities should be expanded,
in particular by increasing broadband connectivity
using fixed, mobile, and satellite technologies and
by exploring non-traditional means of connectivity,
such as community networks.”____
https://g20.org/en/media/Documents/G20%20DETF%20COVID-19%20Ministerial%20St…
Policy makers are going sufficiently slow about CNs
in most countries. If at all, I see the interest of
the ITU contributing to speed up things. It's
obviously voluntary for everyone to participate in
this process, but the process is taking place
regardless, and either we contribute or the likes of
the GSMA, Viasat and Telefonica will contribute with
their own definitions of community networks which are
very far from the ones that have been considered
here. In that case, is not only that the ITU may
influence policy makers, is that is will influence
them with the wrong evidence. ____
Here an example of the interpretation of what
community involvement means for GSMA and one of its
members____
https://www.gsma.com/mobilefordevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/GSMA-C…
https://techcentral.co.za/vodacom-to-pay-community-members-to-protect-its-b…
best, ____
carlos____
On 28/5/20 21:07, Raoul Plommer wrote:____
We need to work with ITU, if we want changes like
free spectrum to break through internationally.
However, I totally agree that we need to be very
careful what power we give them in advising them.
____
____
-Raoul____
____
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 16:46, sivasubramanian
muthusamy <6.internet(a)gmail.com
<mailto:6.internet@gmail.com>> wrote:____
It is good to keep the ITU informed, but this
can't lead to a situation where ITU gains
total legitimacy over all policy related to
community networks, which might place the ITU
in a position to influence all decisions,
some of which might cause the policy makers
to go slow on Community Networks... (Sorry, I
find it difficult to trust the influences
weighing in on ITU)____
____
On Thu, May 28, 2020, 19:10 gphlilanthi
<gphlilanthi(a)gmail.com
<mailto:gphlilanthi@gmail.com>> wrote:____
I hear G20 are supporting CN. Does anyone
know of any specifics regarding this
policy please? ____
Regards AmalI De Silva-Mitchell ____
____
____
____
____
____
Sent from my Galaxy Tab A (2016)____
-------- Original message --------____
From: Carlos <carlos(a)apc.org
<mailto:carlos@apc.org>> ____
Date: 27/05/2020 22:20 (GMT-08:00) ____
To: dc3 <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net>> ____
Subject: [DC3] ITU Council seeking input
on how Community Networks increase
Internet connectivity ____
____
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(a)itu.int
<mailto: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-001…
--
Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD
Local Access Policy and Regulation
Coordinator
Association for Progressive Communications
https://www.apc.org/en/project/connecting-unconnected-supporting-community-…
Cel: +27 (0) 76 986 3633
Skype: carlos.reymoreno Twitter: Creym
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3____
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3____
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3____
____
___________________________________________________
DC3 mailing list____
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>____
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3____
-- ____
Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD____
Local Access Policy and Regulation Coordinator____
Association for Progressive Communications____
https://www.apc.org/en/project/connecting-unconnected-supporting-community-…
Cel: +27 (0) 76 986 3633____
Skype: carlos.reymoreno Twitter: Creym____
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3____
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3____
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3____
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>