19 Nov
2015
19 Nov
'15
5:37 p.m.
A last point:
This - our proposed area of work - is one of the most important area of
Internet policy and practice at this time. To be effective, we need to
build on what exists and also to provide the right terms and slogans to
build a movement and the right kind of advocacy pressure. 'Community
networks' is an existing term which is becoming a bit of movement (like
community radio, or indeed, net neutrality) and a policy term as well. I
dont see it getting replaced by 'connected communities' in any kind of
effective way.
parminder
On Thursday 19 November 2015 10:53 PM, parminder wrote:
Luca
If by asking whether I can live with it you mean would i leave the
group if this name is retained then, no, i wont.... But I remain very
uncomfortable with this name, maybe because we also actually work in
the area that the term 'connected communities' literally describes.
And as now I learn this term is actually used by an existing large
scale project and community in this literal meaning. What I cant
understand is that when both the literal meaning and current in
practice meaning of this term is so different why do we insist on
using it. Also, as I read the text on the etherpad that you have set
up it is all about 'community networks'. So why would be want to
create such a obvious and visible discrepancy in the name of the
group, under which we want to work in this very important area.
parminder
On Thursday 19 November 2015 10:27 PM, Luca Belli wrote:
I tend to agree with Nico. It is indeed the
action plan that will define what this coalition will do rather than the acronym we
choose.
Parminder, your point is clear but it seems to me that all other participants would agree
with the name DC on Conncected Communities, while clearly explaining our focus within the
action plan. If you can live with the proposed name, I would ask everyone to check the
action plan to propose final tweaks and modifications, so that I can send the request yo
the IGF Secretariat by the end of the week.
Here is the pad https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/dc_on_connected_communities
Best
Luca
________________________________________
De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net] em nome de
Nicolás Echániz [nicoechaniz(a)altermundi.net]
Enviado: quinta-feira, 19 de novembro de 2015 13:26
Para: dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net
Assunto: Re: [DC3] RES: Re: Future IGF Dynamic Coalition on Connected Communities
Parminder,
I get your point and it's an important one.
Maybe: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity would be better?
(and we can keep the DC3 acronym)
At first we talked about calling it Dynamic Coalition on Community
Networks, but this poses the problem of maybe being too narrow. Some
interesting solutions for community connectivity are not exactly
community networks but we still share most of our needs and goals
regarding policy, etc. so a broader name was necessary.
I'd like to propose that we close this discussion soon, not because it
is not interesting, but because I've seen many community networks
coalition attempts get entangled in the naming discussion for weeks, and
get to no solution that would satisfy everyone. Let's make this
Coalition be defined by the work we do, regardless of the name we end up
choosing.
Cheers,
Nico
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3