18 Nov
2015
18 Nov
'15
6:57 p.m.
Hi all,
On 18/11/15 19:08, Luca Belli wrote:
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?
I agree with your point. The EC has also a program on connected
communities as it focuses on people, their local communities, and
socio-economic factors.
Broadband sounds to me quite techie old/traditional/engineering term,
hard to explain to my daughter (not succeeded yet). Instead of simply
connectivity, it resonates with radio and frequency and spectrum, speed
or other measures of quality of access, QoE. In Europe we start to
discuss about what is the criteria to qualify for broadband (>30Mbps,
symmetric?, latency, etc).
Best regards, Leandro.
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(a)itforchange.net>
To: Luca Belli <luca.belli(a)fgv.br>br>, dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>et>, bob19-0501(a)bobf.frankston.com
<bob19-0501(a)bobf.frankston.com>om>, lee.hibbard(a)coe.int
<lee.hibbard(a)coe.int>nt>, Jamila Rodrigues Venturini
<jamila.venturini(a)fgv.br>br>, ritu.sri(a)defindia.net
<ritu.sri(a)defindia.net>et>, otavio.vinhas(a)gmail.com
<otavio.vinhas(a)gmail.com>om>, catherine.middleton(a)ryerson.ca
<catherine.middleton(a)ryerson.ca>ca>, janara.sousa(a)gmail.com
<janara.sousa(a)gmail.com>om>, edliano(a)hotmail.com <edliano(a)hotmail.com>om>,
plommer(a)gmail.com <plommer(a)gmail.com>om>, donck(a)isoc.org
<donck(a)isoc.org>rg>, vicentin(a)riseup.net <vicentin(a)riseup.net>et>,
yzdrrr(a)riseup.net <yzdrrr(a)riseup.net>et>, bankston(a)newamerica.org
<bankston(a)newamerica.org>rg>, foditsch(a)gmail.com <foditsch(a)gmail.com>
CC: nicoechaniz(a)altermundi.net <nicoechaniz(a)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(a)gmail.com <mailto:plommer@gmail.com> please state your name J
·edliano(a)hotmail.com <mailto:edliano@hotmail.com> please state your
name J
·Lee Hibbard
·Frédéric Donck
·Diego Vicentin
·Nathalia Foditsch
·yzdrrr(a)riseup.net <mailto:yzdrrr@riseup.net> also please state your
name J
·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
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3