Dear all, it's a pleasure taking part in this discussion on CNs and in
the potential dynamic coalition. In between the naming options presented
here, I also support "community connectivity" because it's broad and
inclusive.

I do agree that engineering aspects are very important. I can help
making contact with IEEE people (I've developed fieldwork research at
the IEEE standards board and the 802 LMSC). They probably have interest
in participating on this initiative, especially because they're seeking
to expand IEEE's influence at the internet governance field.

But, at this point, it seems more important mapping existing CNs to
identify their mode of operation, ideas and needs (in terms of local
engagement, technical infrastructure and regulation). A set of
recommended practices and challenges to overcome must come from the
ground, from the ones which are already building and managing CNs. This
is already a huge challenge since CNs are quite diverse.

We could start by putting together (wiki platform?) all material we know
about CNs.

Looking foward to work on this with you all.

best wishes,
Diego

Em 23/11/15 03:02, parminder escreveu:

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