Alas, in
http://rmf.vc/IEEEMobileEdge I wrote about the problem of thinking
about an edge. I started using the term "first square mile" as a play on
last/first to distinguish it from the idea of the Internet as something
delivered in pipes to shift it to a common infrastructure we own locally and
then expand from there.
The challenge we face is that, at this point, there is a lot of attention
being paid to the gear in order to get things to work. But the important
goal is to make it possible to completely ignore the gear and just be
connected between any two end points. I see this as a problem of economics
-- how do we get the benefits of an enabling infrastructure without making
it all about the details of the infrastructure.
-----Original Message-----
From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net
[mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On Behalf Of Carlos Afonso
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 11:16
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] RES: RES: Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0
You can always substitute "at the edge", "at the community level",
"at the
user's premises" etc etc for "in the last mile", if "last
km" does not sound
right for traditional reasons. :-)
--c.a.
On 20/10/2016 13:00, dc3(a)bob.ma wrote:
This is a question I sometimes ask are terms like
last mile
idiomatic rather than referring to an actual mile? Even worse is when
you have a naïve translator writing about the last 1.6 km. If indeed
last mile is idiomatic then first square mile works and first
km2 isnt quite the same play on meme.
From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net
[mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On Behalf Of Luca Belli
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:51
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: [DC3] RES: RES: Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0
Hi Leandro,
I agree with substituting square miles with km. Metric systems seems
indeed slightly more widespread :)
http://www.zmescience.com/other/map-of-countries-officially-not-using-
the-me
tric-system/
also a good idea to merge 2.e and 2.f (free peering and transit)
As regards 2.c (open design) and 2.g (free and open software and
tech), I think you raise a good point I would not consider them as
redundant. On the contrary, I would rather re-order them to stress
that CN should be based on the use of free and open software and tech
AND the resulting design should ALSO be published and accessible to
everyone. So I suggest moving 2.g (free and open software and tech) right
before
open design.
As regards, logistics, we have 5 confirmed events the Pre-event and
Disco-Tech, on 5 Dec; our workshop (N 238 on Community Connectivity)
and the
DC3 annual meeting on 7 Dec; and the Post-IGF event
Here my original mail on IGF Activities
http://listas.altermundi.net/pipermail/dc3/2016-September/000307.html
And here the IGF programme
http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download
/12/12
3
Best
Luca
<http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Marca_FGV_Dire
ito_Ri
o.png>
Luca Belli, PhD
Senior Researcher
Head of <http://internet-governance.fgv.br/> Internet Governance @
FGV luca.belli(a)fgv.br <mailto:luca.belli@fgv.br>
+55 21 3799 5763
<http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png>
De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
[mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Leandro Navarro
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2016 21:03
Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> >
Assunto: Re: [DC3] RES: Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0
Hi, edits, comments and questions:
I'd remove "of equal importance". It's a bit obvious/redundant
(marked
but not removed)
capitalized Internet, i18n: mile -> Km
Proposed (but not done):
e and f could be merged to make it more compact and readable:
e+f) Free traffic: transit and peering to other networks in reciprocal
e+terms
g) as a preference comes directly from c) I'd remove
Alternative to the current h) to follow the pattern of: x) point:
description
h) safety: security and privacy in the design and operation
Logistics:
- We finally don't have pre-event/day-0 event? (5/12)
- Anything to prepare/discuss for our workshop during IGF?
- I understand we still have the post-event on Saturday 10th on
Community Nets. Any idea for the program to discuss?
+ We'd like to spend with you some time discussing training materials
about community networks we're preparing, among other topics.
+ In the netcommons.eu project we've produced several studies that we
can outline, and get help to generalize from a mostly European focus.
Any suggestion about accommodation? :-)
See you in Guadalajara, Leandro.
On 19/10/16 20:35, Luca Belli wrote:
Hi Nico,
You are rising a valid point.
Perhaps (h) could be slightly rephrased as follows
h) the consideration of security and privacy concerns while designing
and operating the network
-----Mensagem original-----
De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net
<mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>
[mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Nicolás Echániz
Enviada em: terça-feira, 18 de outubro de 2016 21:23
Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Assunto: Re: [DC3] Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0
regarding point h) security and privacy are components of network
design and operation.
... although this sounds good, I don't see it generally implemented in
most community networks I know of.
This could be a point for discussion for the future, but it seems
incorrect (from our perspective) to express it in this way right now.
Maybe Christian, who added it has other information which makes this a
valid point for the definition right now.
Maybe if we rephrase it to express an intention instead of something
that's currently being done it is ok.
I also added on point c) of the Policy section something regarding
Dynamic Spectrum for secondary use... this is not exactly unlicensed
spectrum so I think the distintion is important.
cheers!
Nico
On 10/18/2016 06:29 PM, Luca Belli wrote:
Dear all,
Many thanks for your inputs on the Declaration.
I have tried to slightly edit the text (particularly the preamble) to
improve readability.
I hope all comments are now reflected properly, particularly the
latest comments provided by Federica, Coenraad and Marcelo. Please do
not hesitate to modify the text using the pad or share any further
feedback *by 25 October*.
https://pad.codigosur.org/GuadalajaraDeclaration
All the best
Luca
FGV Direito Rio
*Luca Belli, PhD*
/Senior Researcher/
/Head of /*/Internet Governance @ FGV
<http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>
<http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>/*//luca.belli@fgv.br
<mailto:/*//luca.belli@fgv.br>
+55 21 3799 *5763*//
http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png
_______________________________________________
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
--
Carlos A. Afonso
[emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário]
[emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise]
Instituto Nupef -
https://nupef.org.br
CGI.br -
http://cgi.br
ISOC-BR -
https://isoc.org.br
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3