This is a question I sometimes ask – are terms like “last mile” idiomatic rather than referring to an actual mile? Even worse is when you have a naïve translator writing about the last 1.6 km. If indeed “last mile” is idiomatic then “first square mile” works and “first km²” isn’t quite the same play on meme.

From: dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On Behalf Of Luca Belli
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:51
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: [DC3] RES: RES: Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0

Hi Leandro,

I agree with substituting square miles with km. Metric systems seems indeed slightly more widespread J

http://www.zmescience.com/other/map-of-countries-officially-not-using-the-metric-system/

also a good idea to merge 2.e and 2.f (free peering and transit)

As regards 2.c (open design) and 2.g (free and open software and tech), I think you raise a good point I would not consider them as redundant. On the contrary, I would rather re-order them to stress that CN should be based on the use of free and open software and tech AND the resulting design should ALSO be published and accessible to everyone. So I suggest moving 2.g (free and open software and tech) right before open design.

As regards, logistics, we have 5 confirmed events the Pre-event and Disco-Tech, on 5 Dec; our workshop (N 238 on Community Connectivity) and the DC3 annual meeting on 7 Dec;  and the Post-IGF event

Here my original mail on IGF Activities http://listas.altermundi.net/pipermail/dc3/2016-September/000307.html

And here the IGF programme http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/12/123

Best

Luca

	Luca Belli, PhD Senior Researcher Head of Internet Governance @ FGV luca.belli@fgv.br +55 21 3799 5763

De: dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Leandro Navarro
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2016 21:03
Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
Assunto: Re: [DC3] RES: Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0

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