[DC3] RES: RES: Habemus Domain Name!

Hi Bob and all, I agree it would be wise to be careful about terminology but I think one of the added value of this coalition would be to help fostering a common vision of what are community networks. Perhaps it would be better to provide a working definition of connectivity and to define community networks as an enabler of connectivity, building on the definition provided by Parminder. What do you think? Also, I think we could try to collect papers (perhaps sharing a call for papers) on community networks and connectivity in general, to elaborate a report to be presented at the next IGF. Such an exercise has worked quite well with DC on network neutrality, providing usefull info to the IGF community. We could try to elaborate a report on 'sustainable connectivity' or something along these lines. We have several months and many amongst us have already material ready to be (re)published. Best Luca ________________________________ De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net] em nome de dc3(a)bob.ma [dc3(a)bob.ma] Enviado: sexta-feira, 19 de fevereiro de 2016 15:11 Para: 'Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity' Assunto: Re: [DC3] RES: Habemus Domain Name! We need to be careful about terminology here. One can say sidewalks are provided because we generally understand they are free to use. Given that that is not the norm for connectivity we need to be careful about terminology. The word “networks” is typically associated with a physical thing – like saying provide a trolley service rather than simply roads and sidewalks we can choose how to use. Rather than providing connectivity the community would facilitate connectivity just like sidewalks are not necessary for getting between two points but facilitate it. The other fine point is that we want to connect devices not just people. People can get past various barriers but connected devices can’t press “agree” nor read ads. I see “community connectivity” as being infrastructure paid for as a common facility like sidewalks rather than server like traditional telecommunications. This allows the facilities to be “free-to-use”. It also means that users providing additional capacity are not competing with a provider but contributing to the community. There is more technical background but that’s a deeper topic. Bob Frankston http://Frankston.com @BobFrankston From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On Behalf Of Luca Belli Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2016 08:07 To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity &lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt; Subject: [DC3] RES: Habemus Domain Name! Excellent Raoul! Many thanks! Luca De: dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net<mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net> [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Raoul Plommer Enviada em: terça-feira, 16 de fevereiro de 2016 07:02 Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net<mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net>> Assunto: Re: [DC3] Habemus Domain Name! That's great, I made the page on https://comconnectivity.wordpress.com/ and will start building it soon. Maureen, send me an email and I will answer with credentials. :) -Raoul On 16 February 2016 at 07:53, parminder <parminder@itforchange.net<mailto:parminder@itforchange.net>> wrote: Thanks Luca for this excellent work... I wonder if we should have at least a basic definition of what is a community network, something like "Community networks are connectivity infrastructure that are owned by the community, whether or not such an ownership is operationalised, wholly or partly, through local private sector entities." Just a rough, quickly done one. We should of course arrive at a commonly agreed definition here. And then put the key objective of the DC to be something like "To explore and develop community networks models, and present them as a key way to provide connectivity to people" And then, in the 'membership section', add something to the effect that, to get the membership of the DC, while any stakeholder group can do it, the applicant must state agreement with the basic objectives of the DC. parminder On Monday 15 February 2016 08:11 PM, Luca Belli wrote: Dear all, Thanks for your inputs regarding the DC3 domain name. The most voted one is comconnectivity.org<http://comconnectivity.org> I have just purchased the domain name so that when Raoul and Maureen will have a draft DC3 website (that you are going to develop with Wordpress if I recollect well), we can redirect the Wordpress URL to comconnectivity.org<http://comconnectivity.org> The basic webpages we need are: About, Members, Sources, News&Ideas. I have just compiled the material we already have as follows https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/dc_on_connected_communities This is just a suggestion. Feel free to develop the webpages content as you prefer. Also, here are the Draft Rules of Procedure https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/DC3_Rules_of_Procedure If there is no opposition to this text, we can considered the Rules as adopted. If you have any final remarks or objections, please modify the pad or share an email by 21 February. All the best Luca [FGV Direito Rio] Luca Belli, PhD Pesquisador | Researcher Lead of Internet Governance @ FGV<http://internet-governance.fgv.br/> luca.belli@fgv.br<mailto: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<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net> https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3 _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3@listas.altermundi.net<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net> https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3