Hi all, a couple of comments:
- on the private companies side of things, maybe Ambrr Labs could be the
one? I think the solution they are trying to implement to facilitate the
compensations in a telecommunications infrastructure managed similarly to a
common-pool resource could be consider as a partnership with CNs. The
interest in the commons show in this thread (I would curious to read an
analysis of IXPs run as commons), plus the fact that it uses blockchain
technology that for what I could read after the meeting in RightsCon, is of
the interest of people in the list, make it a very good candidate.
It would be interesting to have the African Union as a potential
intergovernmental organization. ISOC organized a workshop on CNs at their
premises last week, and it was very successful. Keeping venues where they
can express their support for the movement in public, will be very
beneficial for the movement in the continent. Plus Moctar Yedaly is always
at the IGF, which makes it easier to consider as a speaker.
best,
carlos
PS: Great to know we are back at 90 minutes!!! :-D
On 25 June 2018 at 17:30, Leandro Navarro <leandro(a)pangea.org> wrote:
  A followup on this. With Roger Baig we're writing
on
 sustainability/scalability (for GISWATCH) and we have done an initial
 analysis on that for several local CN in several regions inside 
guifi.net.
 We can expand it to other networks (outside 
guifi.net), even compare to
 IXP and report there. Knowing the deadlines for any submission would help
 to decide. Kind regards, Leandro.
 On 25/6/18 16:37, Jane Coffin wrote:
 Hi Luca/All –
 See inline….
 Internet Society | 
www.internetsociety.org
 Skype:  janercoffin
 Mobile/WhatsApp:  +1.202.247.8429
 *From: *<dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net>
 <dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net> on behalf of Luca Belli
 <luca.belli(a)fgv.br> <luca.belli(a)fgv.br>
 *Reply-To: *Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
 <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
 *Date: *Friday, June 22, 2018 at 3:06 PM
 *To: *Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
 <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
 *Cc: *"donna_scheeder(a)comcast.net" <donna_scheeder(a)comcast.net>
 <donna_scheeder(a)comcast.net> <donna_scheeder(a)comcast.net>
 *Subject: *[DC3] RES: Planning the DC3 Session
 Hi Jane,
 Thanks for the comparison with IXPs that I think is very pertinent.
 You raise very good points and, fo course it would be great to have the
 time to analyse all in depth.
 My only concern is that, although we have regained our 90-min slot, 90 min
 is still quite limited…
 It would be very good to feture in the Manual a brief part on “Gudelines
 for CN evolution/sustainability/scalability” or something along this
 lines, if anyone is willing to draft it (perhaps based on the IXP work
 promoted by ISOC?)
 *We can take that on, but would clearly be working with APC/our CNSIG on
 that.
 **Remind me of your deadlines?
 Best,
 jane
 It would also be great to have a brief piece on sevices generated/fostered
 by the CN ecosystem. I have analyses some case studies (
Guifi.net, TIC-AC,
 NWNP and Quintanalivre) in my contribution for last year’s DC3 report
 <http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19924>. It would be
 great if anyone (amogts the CN cited above? or someone else e.g. Toronto
 Mesh people who apparently are developing their CN in parallel with P2P
 applications) could draft a short contribution on how to facilitate app
 generativity.
 I have just added to the call for resources, two bullet points on
 CN scalability and sustainability
 App and service generation
 All the best
 Luca
 *De:* dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.
 
altermundi.net <dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net>] *Em nome de *Jane
 Coffin
 *Enviada em:* sexta-feira, 22 de junho de 2018 04:50
 *Para:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
 <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
 *Cc:* donna_scheeder(a)comcast.net
 *Assunto:* Re: [DC3] Planning the DC3 Session
 Hi Luca –
 Some food for thought as I was not at Rights Con (sadly 😉).
 CNs – from my experience – go through phases of development and phases of
 challenges.
 In the IXP world (which is similar) we saw the:
 -start-up phase (mostly volunteer and often non-profit and not yet
 charging for services or ports/other)
 -Intermediate phase – from start-up to more developed platform, membership
 base, and management of IXP by volunteers which transition to charging
 annual fees or for services at the IXP.  Customer service switch from
 purely volunteer to hiring part-time staff/full time after that (or in some
 cases still purely volunteer, but more organized or more accustomed to what
 they are doing)– more members have generally joined as the value-add
 (value) of the IXP was clear and members began to invest more time and
 business focus into the IXP becoming more stable, more of a non-profit
 business, and more focus on customer service from the sense that the
 platform needed to be stable as it was a boon to the community.  Member
 base is transitioning from pure ISP and a few content delivery networks.
 -more mature non-profit entity (business if you will) – generally not
 commercial, but a business nonetheless – more professionalized as its
 member-base grows and diversifies and maintenance and expectations are
 different when both the technical facilities and management need to match
 expectations due to the value of the platform.  Classic bottom-up
 governance and a clear Internet player.
 *there are challenges at all of these levels and I would suggest the same
 is likely the case for CNs
 For CNs – my guess is that we can chart development of a CN in a similar
 manner.
 -“start-up”
 -Intermediate non-profit that is relied up for its service and the team
 managing has more experience, can troubleshoot faster, and is dedicated to
 customer service (or keeping the network up)
 -More developed/non-profit that has shifted into a different mind-set that
 may be more network growth focused, business focused in order to make sure
 more gear can be purchased and the platform is managed.
 Do you want to limit the workshop to start-up, but consider identifying
 the other phases in the compendium for future consideration?
 Clearly there is going to be great info from all of the phases.
 The development of CNs is of great interest.  What I have not noted is the
 importance to the community – social value and the value of the CN to
 local, regional, other authorities and what the corollary impact on how one
 is able to advance reg/pol change.
 Best,
 Jane
 Internet Society | 
www.internetsociety.org
 Skype:  janercoffin
 Mobile/WhatsApp:  +1.202.247.8429
 *From: *<dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net> on behalf of Luca Belli <
 luca.belli(a)fgv.br>
 *Reply-To: *Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <
 dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
 *Date: *Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 2:19 PM
 *To: *Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <
 dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
 *Cc: *"donna_scheeder(a)comcast.net" <donna_scheeder(a)comcast.net>
 *Subject: *[DC3] Planning the DC3 Session
 Hi all,
 A further issue we should start discussing is the planning of the DC3
 session.
 As DC3 has continuously produced outputs, we have a session slot by
 default but we should send a draft session proposal by *29 June*.
 As discussed at Rightscon
<http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/4391/1254>,
 the DC3 session could have a threefold structure featuring the following
 parts:
    1. presentation of (at least some of) the initiatives featured in the
    2018 DC3 Report (that should be the “CN Manual” mentioned in my previous
    email)
    2. discussion with people in their early phase of CN development to
    understand the challenges they are facing
    3. discussion with potential partners
 FYI, the 90 minutes time slot has been reestablished (thanks to all those
 who commented during the IGF stocktaking consultation requesting
 restauration of the 90 min slot!!).
 The session should be as much as possible, multistakeholder, gender
 balanced and geographically diverse.
 I propose to have up to 3 speakers in part 1; 2 for part 2; and 2 (or
 maybe 3) in part 3.
 The speakers for part 1 will be chosen amongst the contributors of the CN
 Manual. If anyone is already sure to submit a contribution for the CN
 manual, please send a message (on-list or a PM) so that I can include your
 name in the DRAFT session description.
 As regards part 2, Nico Pace offered to help liaise with people currently
 developing CNs and facing challenges. Nico can you suggest some names?
 As regards part 3, I was thinking that IFLA could be good (I am CCing
 Donna) and perhaps one Intergovernmental org that is dealing with CNs e.g.
 CITEL or African Union.
 Lastly, after having read what Google India is doing, providing Free WiFi
 at Indian train stations, I have started wondering if it could also be a
 potential partner to be included in the discussion 
https://qz.com/1300522/
 googles-free-wifi-at-railway-stations-is-a-way-of-life-for-
 8-million-indians/
 What do you think?
 Best
 Luca
 [image: FGV Direito Rio]
 *Luca Belli, PhD*
 *Senior Researcher *
 *Head of Internet Governance @ FGV <http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>*
 luca.belli(a)fgv.br
 +55 21 3799 *5763*
 *@1lucabelli <https://twitter.com/1lucabelli>*
 [image: 
http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]
 _______________________________________________
 DC3 mailing
listDC3@listas.altermundi.nethttps://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
 _______________________________________________
 DC3 mailing list
 DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
 
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
 
-- 
Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD
"Community and Local Access Networks" Project Coordinator
Association for Progressive Communications