Hi Diego and all,
You raise a very important point regarding coexistence of the “traditional” telecom
paradigm (i.e. selling Internet access as selling access to a mall) vs the community
network paradigm (i.e. independently create a lot of autonomously small and medium size
‘shops’ and interconnect them).
I totally agree that we cannot think that the former disappears while we try to promote
the latter. On the contrary, a good injection of pragmatism is necessary and, while we try
to do our best to foster CN, we have to ensure that the two model coexists with no
I think we have both the time and capacity to identify good practices and draft a model
framework that we can present at the IGF as a DC3 outcome. The model could include some
basic principles and definitions that allow the general public to understand what is
connectivity, what CNs are and how they could be promoted sustainably and, last but not
least, how can CN coexist with the traditional model.
The IGF Secretariat is keen on letting us use the IGF website platform to allow the IGF
community to provide feedback to our work. Therefore, my proposal is to (1) start
collecting ideas on how to structure such framework using an open pad (as usual :) so
that, once we have defined the structure we want to use, (2) we can develop a first draft
and, lastly, (3) use the IGF website to request feedback and consolidate into a second
draft. What do you think?
Here is a pad with some early ideas (also below)
Feel free to modify/add whatever you want. This are just some early suggestions
DRAFT DC3 WORKING DEFINITIONS and PRINCIPLES
"Connectivity" is the ability to reach all endpoints connected to the Internet
without any form of restriction to the content exchanged, enabling end-usersto run any
application and use any tyoe of service via any device.
“Community networks” are a subset of crowdsourced networks that are structured to be open,
free, and neutral. In these communities the infrastructure is established by the
participants and is managed as a common resource, owned by the community. Community
networks can be operationalised, wholly or partly, through local private sector
CN SELF-REGULATION & GOVERNANCE
• - ORGANIZATION (how the CN is managed)
• - PARTICIPATION (how to become a CN node)
• - PARTICIPANTS (code of conduct to avoid liability)
CN DEVELOPMENT and FACILITATION
• - TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS (e.g. software, hardware, spectrum management, etc)
• - POLICY (e.g. open access policies, no Hadopi-style user responsibility to secure his
own connection, dynamic spectrum allocation, etc)
De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Em nome
de Diego Vicentin
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 2 de junho de 2016 17:50
Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Assunto: Re: [DC3] Thoughts on Community Infrastructure
Dear Bob and dear Nico, thanks for sharing your thoughts. This is just a quick reaction to
it and Bob's text.
Although I completly agree with Bob's distinction between Internet and
Telecommunication, I'd like to point out that the telecommunications industry is
stronger than never. Telecom operators are basically enforcing their old "business
model" over the internet that is increasingly understood as a service towards a
consumer or "end-user"
(not as internetworking). Telco's attempt to impose "data caps" model in
cable services is only a recent example of scarcity creation between many others.
CNs are indeed an important alternative to avoid the scarcity regime by relying on local
engagement and technology. But, CNs have to coexist with Telecom industry since the latter
will not simply disappear. For this reason I suggest that an important task for this group
(DC3) in regard to IGF and other "governance bodies" (like ITU) is defining
principles to establish fair coexistence, specially in terms of interconnection (traffic
exchange) and radio spectrum access that seem to be two key factors to CNs' operation
Em 01/06/16 11:16, Bob Frankston escreveu:
(This is a bit rambling ... more reason for a
it's hard to capture all the nuance in a monolog).
It's helpful for me to learn how people interpret my examples. There
is also a lot to respond to that requires more of a book than an
essay. I'm striving for an amoral understanding of motivations and the
paradigms/memes through which we view the world. There is an
interesting interplay between the acceptance of authority be it
corporations or saviors that leads us to look to authority for
answers. It is the notion that things can't work unless someone is in
charge. My sense is that in Latin America there is a more lawless
version whereas in the US there is more of a popular embrace (aided and abetted by
I've switched from roads to sidewalks as my standard example because
roads to have a lot of implicit semantics. I use trolleys as an
example of infrastructure built for "access" rather than local use.
You may be interested in http://rmf.vc/Turnpikes
describing how the US
went from toll roads as the norm to roads as a public facility. At
this point I explain that tolls are only placed at constriction points
where people can be forced to pay and we tell them just-so stories
about why the tolls pay for the roads when, in reality, they are just more sources of
income to the ...
either community or road owners or whatever. This is also related to
the "access" meme - it's another story.
One reason I use sidewalks is that they facilitate walking but are not
necessary because one can take paths.
While people can be forced to drive on highways in the US, at least,
they are generally public infrastructure so that they aren't
considered captured by corporations. In
I write about public roads permitted
competition with railroads whereas the FCC has prevented a similar alternative for our
ability to communicate.
As to food, you might be interested in
In general I don't worry so much about "corporate benefit" as much as
acceptance of the notion that things are "provided" rather than
created by cooperation. This is why your examples are so important. It
is also why I try to explain how we stumbled upon a DYI/DYO (Do It
Ourselves) Internet because it's difficult for people to understand
and thus the provider story is so much easier.
I'll need to learn more about the World Forums and we should think
about how to present a DYO approach for IGF. I'm glad you and Luca are
on top of this because I’m not very good at such procedures. They are
far beyond my planning horizon.
[mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Nicolás
Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2016 00:16
Subject: Re: [DC3] Thoughts on Community Infrastructure
I've finally taken the time to read your text Bob.
I believe your ideas are perfectly compatible or maybe even more of a
background to what I've been pushing for lately: that we stop
talking about access to the Internet and instead start to talk more
about making infrastructure available to people (communities), so they
devices) can network in whichever way they want/can.
The "internet access" terminology puts the people in a position of
receiving a service and it also puts companies as middlemen between these
and the "goods" they are consuming (Facebook, Youtube, etc.).
You know I usually use the example of the roads system in a different
way than you do, but it's compatible:
The Internet as it's being mostly modeled by big companies is
equivalent to a roads system where every house has to be directly
connected to a toll road or highway. There are no local roads, no
sidewalks, no spontaneous paths through the land. Just highways.
In this model, people cannot "walk" to the park or to the local shop
(local service); those cannot exist. People have to use the highway
and they have to buy at the Mall (concentrated data centers) and have
fun in the Mall's theater (Facebook, Youtube, etc.). And of course
they always have to pay for this "access" through toll booths.
In my view, fighting for "access for everyone" leaves out the
discussion about how the infrastructure is built, controlled and used.
From community networks perspective we need to stress these ideas. We
need local infrastructure that's open for everyone to use (just like
local roads are), where people can host and offer locally and to the
rest of the world their contents, services, etc. This point of view
also breaks the idea of scarcity that is artificially imposed only to create profit.
And this also connects our struggle with many others that are also the
result of artificial scarcity for corporate benefit. The food problem
is one example. And in fact, the approach of that fight is also sometimes wrong.
Communities don't just need access to food. We need a system where the
land can be used locally so the people can produce and share what they
need. The artificial scarcity problem is again created through
concentration, of the land, of the production means and of the food distribution
There are many other examples of this and it's a reason why I have
focused for years on trying to get people from one camp to identify
they are fighting the same struggle as others, just in a different domain.
So... in relation to this, I want to propose that we somehow have the
DC3 represented in the World Social Forum and the World Forum of Free
Media this year in Montreal.
Sorry for the long e-mail.
On 05/21/2016 08:22 PM, dc3(a)bob.ma wrote:
I’ve tried to put together my thoughts about
as infrastructure. For now it’s a draft at
I plan to post it when the video of my Rio talk on infrastructure
I’d appreciate feedback.
DC3 mailing list
DC3 mailing list
DC3 mailing list