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> on behalf of "dc3(a)bob.ma"
<dc3(a)bob.ma>
*Reply-To: *Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
*Date: *Sunday, May 31, 2020 at 2:36 PM
*To: *Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
<dc3(a)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
<dc3-bounces(a)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>
*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
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net