I believe that as long as everyone with ideas to help community networks
get more visibility and more adoption can have space in this coalition
to push them forward, it's better to let those interested act on them
rather than debate pre-emptively.

Let's look at the technological aspect as well as the policy and funding
aspects. They are not mutually exclusive.
I know people in the group more focused on one area or another, we
should all harness that potential.

Luca, have you been able to present the request to the IGF Secretariat?

How long does it take to have the Coalition approved or rejected?


Cheers,
Nico


On 11/22/2015 05:21 PM, dc3@bob.ma wrote:

As I explained in my talk at IGF the issue is not so much any particular
technology but the way we fund connectivity so that it is free-to-use
like sidewalks and roads. I say free-to-use rather than free or open
because we need a sustainable funding model with everyone in the
community contributing. This works best, initially, with small
communities rather than trying to do large cities because then people
are aware they are paying for their shared resources rather than it
being imposed from afar. The more local the better because it allows us
to assume what I am calling “ambient connectivity” in the immediate area.

 

Key to this is understanding the concept of “best efforts” packets which
doesn't require assuring that every last packet gets through. Instead we
provide resources that anyone can use. This is not just about social
networking but about creating technologies that can be used for all
purposes such as crop management, environmental monitor and healthcare.

 

I write more about this at http://rmf.vc/FurtherReadingbut it’s a
work-in-progress because it requires thinking very differently from how
traditional telecommunications works.

 

Bob Frankston

http://Frankston.com

@BobFrankston

 

*From:*dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net
[mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] *On Behalf Of *Raoul Plommer
*Sent:* Sunday, November 22, 2015 15:11
*To:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
<dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
*Subject:* Re: [DC3] RES: Re: Future IGF Dynamic Coalition on Connected
Communities

 

Hello to everyone and sorry for not answering the list sooner. I'm still
in Brazil for another ten days and just spent the last four days in the
jungle. I am highly motivated to help this project fly, but most of the
work will have to wait until I'm back in my cold country from 3rd of
December onwards.

I think the name Community Networks is more of a household name, so in
that sense it might be catchier for the masses. On the other hand, DC3
is a catchier acronym than DCCN. Community Networks and Community
Connectivity both suite our purposes as I understand the reason for
creating this group, which is to create a source of knowledge to help
people build their own networks that can be again linked to each other.
At the very least, it should have information on the engineering
perspective of those networks, both hardware and software, and collect
the best practices on the DC3 website. Like somebody already put it,
it's not the name that counts, but what we do for it.

This group should start with the engineering, because it is a more
accurate science than the other mentioned areas, that this group could
be doing. It seems more concrete and the results can be easily measured.
Other areas like the legal framework for individual countries' allowed
radio frequency should probably follow fairly soon. I feel that the
engineering part is the biggest threshold stopping people from creating
their own networks and it is something that we should ask for help from
groups like IETF and IEEE to decide what those best practices would be.
I have an impression that a lot of technical geniuses work in them.

The website could be mirrored and hosted in different countries so that
it's as accessible as possible, and it'd be important to be able to pull
all the available information for offline reading too. I can help in
making the website front-end and coordinating things, for I'm not
technically that talented. I still want to participate because I think
this project can make an immense impact for the connectedness of all
mankind. There are also gains in privacy and availability of information
to circumvent totalitarian means that obstruct the flows of information.
Just the project for a Pirate, and our global political movement can
help to push this project forward and start building networks in over
fifty countries.

We need at least two profiles for the website, rural and urban, but
there might be reasons to make more, to differentiate best practices for
metropolis-size cities and smaller townships. The equipment should be as
cheap as possible without damaging the quality of the network and I
think governments could actually chip in to boost the building of robust
and resilient networks for their citizens. I've heard rasberry pi is
enough to have a node in a MESH-network, but correct me if I'm wrong. It
would also be useful to be able to use old computers, because they can
be acquired freely and it prolongs their lifespan.

I hope I didn't rant on too much, but I wanted to blurt out all the
thoughts I've had on this project for many years already. I'm totally in
favor of learning some engineering skills for this and I've wanted to
setup a MESH-network in Helsinki for a long time already. I'm probably
unemployed for quite a while now, so I should have quite a bit of time
on my hands. I am really looking forward to working with all of you.

Raoul Plommer

 

https://twitter.com/plomm3r

https://fb.com/plommer

 

On 20 November 2015 at 10:47, Leandro Navarro <leandro@pangea.org
<mailto:leandro@pangea.org>> wrote:

    Good to me too, Leandro.



    On 19/11/15 19:32, Nicolás Echániz wrote:

        On 11/19/2015 02:16 PM, parminder wrote:

            On Thursday 19 November 2015 08:56 PM, Nicolás Echániz wrote:

                Parminder,
                Maybe: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity would
                be better?
                (and we can keep the DC3 acronym)

            Nico

            It is certainly better than connected communities.


        Bob is OK with this option, Parminder prefers it, I tend to
        agree after
        this discussion.

        So I propose we keep: *Dynamic Coalition on Community
        Connectivity* as
        the name for this DC. While less "poetic" to my ear, it seems to
        better
        describe our purpose and it does not present the bad aspects
        discussed
        regarding the first option.

        Can we agree on this? Is this OK for the rest who shared in this
        discussion? Luca, Leandro, Mike, Ritu?



        Cheers,
        Nico

_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3@listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3