[DC3] DECLARATION Was: Neutrality of technology in the Guadalajara declaration

Hi all, I agree with Roul that modifications to the text of the Declaration should be discussed on the DC3 mailing list, so that everyone has the possibility to provide feedback. Several modifications were proposed last week and I think we should have a couple weeks to carefully read and discuss them. Here is the pad with the latest version of the Declaration https://pad.codigosur.org/GuadalajaraDeclaration Please take your time to read it and to express your feedback, so that we can consolidate all comments into a consensus document. Given that many of us will have holydays over the next weeks, I propose DC3 members provide their feedback on the latest version of the declaration by 3 January. All the best Luca [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 [http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png] De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Raoul Plommer Enviada em: sábado, 10 de dezembro de 2016 23:22 Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity &lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt; Assunto: [DC3] Neutrality of technology in the Guadalajara declaration Dear all, There was quite a bit of disagreement on the language used in the declaration, partially because the sentence was added there only today, without the acceptance wider community. I think it was poor judgement to add it today without any discussion with all the members of our Dynamic Coalition. However, now that it's out there, and we ended up spending almost two hours of our precious time on these sudden additions, we might as well include this, admittedly fair point. Here are my proposals of the different variations on just one sentence that could be used instead. One of the sentences that was discussed, is as follows: "We acknowledge that communication technology is not neutral and can exacerbate unequal power relations in the community." ...and here are my suggestions. I wrote the crucial changes in bold: 1) We acknowledge that communication technologies are not always neutral and can exacerbate unequal power relations in the community. 2) We acknowledge that the usage of communication technology is not neutral and can exacerbate unequal power relations in the community. 3) We acknowledge that community networks are not neutral and can exacerbate unequal power relations in the community. As you can see, my suggestions are not making that much change to the spirit of the meaning, but just wording it differently will actually make our statement more accurate and popular, as well as less controversial. The declaration should really alienate as few people as possible and we really need to keep that in mind, while still making a definitive statement that is actually saying something. I.e. the hammer itself IS neutral (although people with no hands won't be able to use it properly. Also, we're all babies at some point and babies won't be able to lift the hammer). It is really the usage of the hammer that can be used in non-neutral way and is the most important acknowledgement, that we DO need for this specific declaration. My first suggestion captures this point of view sufficiently enough. I feel that all of us agreed on the spirit of the sentence, and I also think that my first suggestion is the one that would really be the best for our purposes. It takes into the account the fact, that community networks can be misused (for example, in an unequal way considering gender), but it's not saying that community networks are not neutral by default. Even if they were (and I don't think they are), I feel that's an unnecessarily negative statement and we should avoid those in our otherwise very positive vision. Somebody suggested to use a differentiating platform (like GitHub?) for the comparison of the crucial sentences and paragraphs in the declaration and I think that's a very good idea. Then we can vote on different versions of them and decide which ones are the best for our purposes. We obviously need to build consensus on our constitution and hopefully the output of that will be a declaration/constitution that we can all agree on. Thanks, -Raoul