Nico and Parminder and all,

I have just sent the request to the IGF Secretariat. The consideration of the request usually takes a couple of weeks (or more if the request is not complete). Having worked for the Secretariat and having personally examined requests, I do not see any reason to refuse ours.

As regards Parminder point on possible telco trolls, I think we can solve it by developing some basic rules of procedure. As an instance, the Rules of Procedures may state that DC3 members do agree to cooperate in the promotion of community networks and community connectivity efforts. 

Let's bear in mind that IGF Dynamic Coalitions are open groups and all individuals/stakeholder have the right to participate. However, DC are self-organised groups that could autonomously define their rules. Therefore, possible trolling and bad-faith-stakeholder participation can be avoided clearly stating that DC3 members are committed to the promotion of community connectivity.

An example of Rules of Procedure can be found here http://www.networkneutrality.info/about.html

Do not worry, rules of procedure do not need to be so legalistic J

I think we can start elaborating the rules while we wait for the IGF Secretariat’s approval. We can use this pad. https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/DC3_Rules_of_Procedurehttps://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/DC3_Rules_of_Procedure

Also, I think it would be wiser to start collecting all the useful resources that have already been shared by Leandro, Bob and Steve using this pad https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/DC3_Resources  As soon as we will have a website, we could publish the resources in a dedicated webpage.

Diego proposed a wiki platform, which is also fine but then we will have to transfer all info from the wiki to the website. Diego, if you want to lead with this task, be my guest. Otherwise, I suggest using the pad until the Secretariat approves the DC3 and, then, transfer the content of the pad on a dedicated webpage of the DC3 website. How does it sound?

All the best

Luca 

---

De: dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net [dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] em nome de parminder [parminder@itforchange.net]
Enviado: segunda-feira, 23 de novembro de 2015 3:02
Para: dc3@listas.altermundi.net
Assunto: Re: [DC3] RES: Re: Future IGF Dynamic Coalition on Connected Communities

I dont fully know how it works with dynamic coalitions (although my organisation did once form one, on Internet principles, which was merged later with that on Internet rights to produce the existing one on Internet rights and principles)

but, I wonder if there can be a threshold condition to join the DC, that a person/ org agrees in principle to the value of community based/owned connectivity infrastructure.. I dont want to end up spending a lot of time here arguing with telcos - who obviously lose out wherever a communtiy owned system comes in - why market based approaches are the best in this area as well or some such thing.... As mentioned earlier, I am ready to keep the area broad to include possible local businesses running these system under some level of supervision of the 'community' but that is still not the big telcos.

I am not saying the a discussion on whether big telcos of community based systems are better, esp in under-served areas, is not a valid discussion. Only that such a discussion should belong outside the DC space and not inside.

parminder

On Monday 23 November 2015 08:46 AM, Nicolás Echániz wrote:

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

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