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 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@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 <dc3@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/>/*//luca.belli@fgv.br
+55 21 3799 *5763*//

http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png

 

 



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


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