On 06/03/2016 11:15 AM, Luca Belli wrote: Mawingu's Malcolm did not answer yet, but Wilfredo of the Cuban Ministerio de Comunicación answered that they are interested. They cannot confirm yet if they'll be able to assist, but we can list them in the proposal. Cheers, Nico

Hi C.A., Many thanks for this. I suggest we go for the option “Other” and propose an "Interactive roundtable" where a first round of panelists is supposed to present problems that need a solution whilst the second round of panelists will present solutions. Lastly the conversation could move to the discussion of some key recommendations together with all the workshop attendees. Problems could be e.g. the deficiency of the traditional telecom paradigm in connecting communities in rural areas; inefficiency of the current spectrum allocation system; etc. while solutions may be various examples of CN success stories; dynamic spectrum management policies; etc. Such format would perfectly fit into the "other" category and I think it would be welcomed by MAG. Note that the IGF website states that "proposed speakers will be sent automated messages to confirm their agreement to be included in your proposal, although their confirmation is not required for the proposal to be considered complete and eligible for evaluation." Therefore I think it is NECESSARY to provide the email adress og the proposed speakers. Please add your email address after your name, if you are amongst the proposed panellist. Best Luca -----Mensagem original----- De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Carlos Afonso Enviada em: sexta-feira, 3 de junho de 2016 17:03 Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> Assunto: Re: [DC3] RES: IGF 2016 participation Estimad*s, good news indeed! Time is really short. I am checking with CGI.br whether we can include them as co-organizers. Please note that there is no longer a "roundtable" type for workshops. I think this is basically a terminological issue, but below I reproduce the current criteria so you can try and find another category to classify our workshop. []s fraternos --c.a. ==== Workshops - IGF 2016 Any individual or organisation can propose a Workshop for the IGF event, except for members of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), who evaluate these proposals. There are several types of Workshop Session formats: • Break-out Group Discussions • Debate • Birds of a Feather • Flash Session • Panel, and • “Other” For a description of these formats, please visit|: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/outline-of-session-formats-2016 The IGF Secretariat receives a large number of workshop proposals each year, only a set of which can be selected due to space constraints. The MAG evaluates these proposals. Any given proposal may be accepted by the MAG, declined, or the MAG may ask one workshop proposer to collaborate and merge with another workshop proposer if both proposals cover the same material. After submitting your proposal, please check the List of Published Workshop Proposals to verify that your proposal has been received for review. For questions regarding this process, please contact Eleonora Mazzucchi at emazzucchi(a)unog.ch , or +41(0)229173678 Contents of Workshop Proposal All proposals must contain the following information: • The contact details of the workshop session organizers • The workshop session format • If submitting a workshop proposal in the Panel format, a background paper must also be provided. Please consult the guidelines for this paper here. • The duration of the workshop session – 30, 60 or 90 minutes. Different formats have different durations. Please consult the workshop session format outlines here. • The title of your proposed workshop session • A concise description of the Internet Governance issue that your workshop session will explore, and its relevance to the 2016 main theme, Internet Governance Forum: Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth (Max 250 words) • Up to three subject matter #tags that describe your workshop session (e.g. #privacy, #diversity, #security). For further information and examples of #tags, please click here. • A list of workshop session co-organizers • Links to reports from previous workshops • A list of speakers, participating individuals and organisations, or a description of how stakeholder perspectives will be represented (Note: proposed speakers will be sent automated messages to confirm their agreement to be included in your proposal, although their confirmation is not required for the proposal to be considered complete and eligible for evaluation.) • The names of moderator(s), online moderator(s) and rapporteur(s) • A description of how online participation will be facilitated • Optional: A list which, if any, Sustainable Development Goals the workshop is meant to address. Note that this information is collected for programming purposes only, and has no bearing on the MAG’s evaluation of your workshop proposal. About online participation Online participants should join sessions through the WebEx platform provided by the IGF. Organisers should consider monitoring social media feeds/comments in the discussion, and not only allow for, but encourage online participants to intervene, preferably using audio and/or video through WebEx. Workshop proposals must include the name of an online moderator. The online moderator must be an integral part of the workshop, technically capable, and work closely with the workshop organiser to develop a clear strategy that includes online participants; ensures that moderators and panellists know how to include online participants on an equal footing with in situ participants; and contains a clear strategy to communicate with online participants and the online moderator to ensure that queues are properly addressed. The online moderator is a critical part of the workshop, not part of the tech support team; therefore, online moderators must also be familiar with the workshop topics and aims. The Remote Participation WG will assist with guidelines and training of online moderators, but cannot provide for online moderators, since this is part of the workshop organisation. Online moderators are required to attend a training session before the IGF. About the descriptive paragraph This part of the proposal should contain a statement of the Internet Governance question to be addressed during the workshop and its relationship to the IGF2016 main theme Inclusive and Sustainable Growth, as well as an overview of the agenda and the session format. Proposers should also explain the room set-up and how it will assist participation in light of the proposed format. Please review the available formats here. About the rapporteur All workshop sessions must be attended by a rapporteur. The purpose of the rapporteur is to produce a summary report of the workshop session. Reports must be submitted to the IGF Secretariat no later than two weeks following the IGF event. If a report is not submitted, then the workshop proposer will not be allowed to submit a workshop proposal for the IGF2017. Workshop Proposal Selection Process To ensure that the final result is a manageable number of high quality workshops, the MAG will closely assess all proposals according to the process outlined below. The selection process will take place in three stages. 1. Initial Screening: Workshop proposals will be accepted from 15 April to 6 June. Proposals will not be accepted after this date. After this period, the IGF Secretariat will conduct an initial screening of proposals. Those which do not satisfy the minimum criteria will be declined for MAG consideration. 2. Evaluation Process: MAG members will evaluate individual proposals between 13 June and 4 July prior to the next MAG meeting, based on the criteria below. 3. Discussion, Identification of Merger Candidates, and Finalization: Final selection of workshop proposals and identification of “merger” candidates will occur during the in-person MAG meeting the week of 11-15 July. The overall programme will then be finalized. Stage 1: Initial screening by IGF Secretariat All proposals must contain the information outlined above, and meet the minimum criteria listed below. Proposals that do not satisfy minimum criteria will be declined for MAG consideration. • MAG members may not themselves submit workshop proposals, but their institutions may do so; • The subject matter of the workshop proposal must be of direct relevance to Internet Governance; • Proposal must be complete and ready for consideration, with all fields of the proposal submission form completed; • Proposers who held a workshops at previous IGFs were required to have submitted a workshop report after the meeting. The proposer must provide a link to this workshop report in their new proposal for IGF2016. Proposals submitted by those who held workshops in the 2014 or 2015 IGF, but who failed to file a workshop report afterwards, will be declined; • No more than 3 proposals from any one individual or institution will be accepted for consideration. MAG members will have the opportunity to review and discuss declined proposals. The initial screening will be completed by: 13 June, one week following the close of the Call for Proposals. Stage 2: Individual MAG member evaluation Following the initial screening, the IGF Secretariat will circulate the workshop proposals to MAG members for individual evaluation. In evaluating workshop proposals, each MAG member will grade the proposal on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) based upon the following considerations: 1. Is the proposal well thought-through and complete? 2. Is the proposal relevant to Internet Governance and to the IGF2016 main theme, Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth? 3. Does the proposal contain a list of proposed speakers, participating individuals and organisations, or a description of how different stakeholder perspectives will be represented across the participants? 4. Is this the first time this individual or organization has submitted a workshop proposal to the IGF? (first-time proposers are preferred over repeat proposers), 5. Is the Workshop description consistent with the format listed (for example, if the format is Debate, then does the proposal describe how the debate will be set up, with timings, etc., indicated)? 6. Is the proposal for a new format? (Break-out Group Discussions, Debates, Flash Sessions, Birds of a Feather and Other formats are encouraged over the Panel format), 7. Is there diversity amongst the participants (gender, geography, stakeholder group, policy perspective, and inclusive of persons with disabilities)? (as a general matter, greater diversity is encouraged), 8. Is there developing country participation? (as a general matter, developing country participation is encouraged), 9. Does the description clearly specify the Internet Governance question to be addressed during the workshop? 10. Does the proposal include a well-considered plan for effective interaction with the workshop participants, both online and on-site? MAG members who do not have expertise in a particular field are not obliged to rate a proposal. If a MAG member rates a proposal 3 or below, he or she must provide a reason for doing so, as feedback for the workshop proposers whose workshops are declined. Proposer names will not be given to MAG members when evaluating (anonymous), but indication will be provided if the proposer is from a developing country. Upon receiving the MAG member scoring, with a target date of 4 July, the Secretariat will prepare a synthesis of the evaluation for MAG members by 11 July, in preparation for the in-person meeting during the week of 11-15 July. The total score for each proposal will be the mean average of the grades received by MAG members. Proposals will be rank ordered and accepted according to available space. Stage 3: MAG discussion, identification of merger candidates, and finalization. During the May meeting, MAG members will look at the results to ensure an overall balance of the themes/topics. It is possible that for certain proposals, which scored just below the threshold of space and availability, the MAG will discuss whether to ask the proposers to make improvements to overcome deficiencies. Proposers will then be contacted and asked to submit a revised proposal. In some cases, the MAG will receive workshop proposals that propose the same issues, topics and format. Due to constraints in space, these similar workshops will be invited to collaborate and “merge” together. In this case, the workshop proposers will be contacted by the IGF Secretariat. In the event that the proposers decline to collaborate the workshop slot can be lost. Following the merger process and other necessary arrangements, the IGF programme will then be finalized. Organizational principles: • When scheduling the overall meeting, the IGF Secretariat will strive to ensure that workshop sessions and other events dealing with topics that are addressed in the Main Sessions will not be scheduled at the same time. • To increase participation, the MAG has expressed a general preference for workshop session formats that are not Panels. Therefore Break-out Group Discussions, Debates, BoFs, Flash Session and Other (new and innovative) formats will be preferred over Panel formats. • Workshop organizers are encouraged to bring new faces to their workshop sessions. In order to do so, they can consult with the resource persons list on the IGF website. • All workshop sessions will be webcasted and will have real-time transcription. Organizers are encouraged to seamlessly include online participants. • The rooms reserved for workshop sessions and all equipment, including a screen and a PC or laptop for projections and a projector (XGA/SVGA Data), will be available free of charge. Details related to the logistics will be made available in due course. • Interpretation in the UN six official languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish), as well as the host country language, is only provided free of charge for the Main Sessions. If workshop session organizers would like to have interpretation for their Session, they would need to bear the cost. To have more information about arranging interpretation for your session, please contact the Secretariat at igf[at]unog.ch • The MAG’s workshop evaluation process should be: fair, transparent, inclusive, practical, and efficient. Reporting All Workshops must include a rapporteur, who shall provide a summary report to the IGF Secretariat within two weeks of the IGF meeting. As indicated in Stage 1, above, workshop organizers failing to meet this deadline will not be allowed to hold an event at the following IGF meeting. ==== On 03/06/2016 16:40, Nicolás Echániz wrote: _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3

On 06/03/2016 06:24 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: +1 to this I added Wilfredo Lopez (Ministerio de Comunicación de Cuba) to the list of proposed speakers. Cheers, Nico

We need to be careful about not begging the question in the sense of confusing intermediate approach for larger solutions. There is a tendency to propose solutions that are incremental and framed in traditional telecommunications. The concept of "spectrum" is one example. It is a construct that takes the 19th century model of telegraphy confined to a worry and marries it to the early 20th century technology of resonant circuits. It is a terrible technology and an economic disaster. With the Internet we don't depend on having a special wireless infrastructure nor do we depend on a carrier to assure that the messages get through. The larger challenge is to think about The Internet as a technique that permits us to take advantage of any opportunity to exchange packets [to use a more specific term than communicate] but we have to discover what is possible (http://rmf.vc/PurposeVSDiscovery). In this sense it is not really a solution to a particular problem as much as a way to discover possibilities. There is an issue with telecommunications in the sense that current policy (as with telecommunications) has to protect "channels" because of a combination of 19th century fragile signaling and its economic legacy. We need a nuanced response rather than just arguing over who the provider is. CNs (as with Nicalas efforts) demonstrate an alternative. Rather than solving problems we can provide examples of how to use opportunities. I don't know much of this we can explain in the context of these panels so I'd like feedback on how to approach this. {BTW, I'm not sure where to provide my email address -- you can add DC3(a)Bob.ma for starters} -----Original Message----- From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On Behalf Of Luca Belli Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 16:22 To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> Subject: [DC3] RES: RES: IGF 2016 participation Hi C.A., Many thanks for this. I suggest we go for the option “Other” and propose an "Interactive roundtable" where a first round of panelists is supposed to present problems that need a solution whilst the second round of panelists will present solutions. Lastly the conversation could move to the discussion of some key recommendations together with all the workshop attendees. Problems could be e.g. the deficiency of the traditional telecom paradigm in connecting communities in rural areas; inefficiency of the current spectrum allocation system; etc. while solutions may be various examples of CN success stories; dynamic spectrum management policies; etc. Such format would perfectly fit into the "other" category and I think it would be welcomed by MAG. Note that the IGF website states that "proposed speakers will be sent automated messages to confirm their agreement to be included in your proposal, although their confirmation is not required for the proposal to be considered complete and eligible for evaluation." Therefore I think it is NECESSARY to provide the email adress og the proposed speakers. Please add your email address after your name, if you are amongst the proposed panellist. Best Luca -----Mensagem original----- De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Carlos Afonso Enviada em: sexta-feira, 3 de junho de 2016 17:03 Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> Assunto: Re: [DC3] RES: IGF 2016 participation Estimad*s, good news indeed! Time is really short. I am checking with CGI.br whether we can include them as co-organizers. Please note that there is no longer a "roundtable" type for workshops. I think this is basically a terminological issue, but below I reproduce the current criteria so you can try and find another category to classify our workshop. []s fraternos --c.a. ==== Workshops - IGF 2016 Any individual or organisation can propose a Workshop for the IGF event, except for members of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), who evaluate these proposals. There are several types of Workshop Session formats: • Break-out Group Discussions • Debate • Birds of a Feather • Flash Session • Panel, and • “Other” For a description of these formats, please visit|: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/outline-of-session-formats-2016 The IGF Secretariat receives a large number of workshop proposals each year, only a set of which can be selected due to space constraints. The MAG evaluates these proposals. Any given proposal may be accepted by the MAG, declined, or the MAG may ask one workshop proposer to collaborate and merge with another workshop proposer if both proposals cover the same material. After submitting your proposal, please check the List of Published Workshop Proposals to verify that your proposal has been received for review. For questions regarding this process, please contact Eleonora Mazzucchi at emazzucchi(a)unog.ch , or +41(0)229173678 Contents of Workshop Proposal All proposals must contain the following information: • The contact details of the workshop session organizers • The workshop session format • If submitting a workshop proposal in the Panel format, a background paper must also be provided. Please consult the guidelines for this paper here. • The duration of the workshop session – 30, 60 or 90 minutes. Different formats have different durations. Please consult the workshop session format outlines here. • The title of your proposed workshop session • A concise description of the Internet Governance issue that your workshop session will explore, and its relevance to the 2016 main theme, Internet Governance Forum: Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth (Max 250 words) • Up to three subject matter #tags that describe your workshop session (e.g. #privacy, #diversity, #security). For further information and examples of #tags, please click here. • A list of workshop session co-organizers • Links to reports from previous workshops • A list of speakers, participating individuals and organisations, or a description of how stakeholder perspectives will be represented (Note: proposed speakers will be sent automated messages to confirm their agreement to be included in your proposal, although their confirmation is not required for the proposal to be considered complete and eligible for evaluation.) • The names of moderator(s), online moderator(s) and rapporteur(s) • A description of how online participation will be facilitated • Optional: A list which, if any, Sustainable Development Goals the workshop is meant to address. Note that this information is collected for programming purposes only, and has no bearing on the MAG’s evaluation of your workshop proposal. About online participation Online participants should join sessions through the WebEx platform provided by the IGF. Organisers should consider monitoring social media feeds/comments in the discussion, and not only allow for, but encourage online participants to intervene, preferably using audio and/or video through WebEx. Workshop proposals must include the name of an online moderator. The online moderator must be an integral part of the workshop, technically capable, and work closely with the workshop organiser to develop a clear strategy that includes online participants; ensures that moderators and panellists know how to include online participants on an equal footing with in situ participants; and contains a clear strategy to communicate with online participants and the online moderator to ensure that queues are properly addressed. The online moderator is a critical part of the workshop, not part of the tech support team; therefore, online moderators must also be familiar with the workshop topics and aims. The Remote Participation WG will assist with guidelines and training of online moderators, but cannot provide for online moderators, since this is part of the workshop organisation. Online moderators are required to attend a training session before the IGF. About the descriptive paragraph This part of the proposal should contain a statement of the Internet Governance question to be addressed during the workshop and its relationship to the IGF2016 main theme Inclusive and Sustainable Growth, as well as an overview of the agenda and the session format. Proposers should also explain the room set-up and how it will assist participation in light of the proposed format. Please review the available formats here. About the rapporteur All workshop sessions must be attended by a rapporteur. The purpose of the rapporteur is to produce a summary report of the workshop session. Reports must be submitted to the IGF Secretariat no later than two weeks following the IGF event. If a report is not submitted, then the workshop proposer will not be allowed to submit a workshop proposal for the IGF2017. Workshop Proposal Selection Process To ensure that the final result is a manageable number of high quality workshops, the MAG will closely assess all proposals according to the process outlined below. The selection process will take place in three stages. 1. Initial Screening: Workshop proposals will be accepted from 15 April to 6 June. Proposals will not be accepted after this date. After this period, the IGF Secretariat will conduct an initial screening of proposals. Those which do not satisfy the minimum criteria will be declined for MAG consideration. 2. Evaluation Process: MAG members will evaluate individual proposals between 13 June and 4 July prior to the next MAG meeting, based on the criteria below. 3. Discussion, Identification of Merger Candidates, and Finalization: Final selection of workshop proposals and identification of “merger” candidates will occur during the in-person MAG meeting the week of 11-15 July. The overall programme will then be finalized. Stage 1: Initial screening by IGF Secretariat All proposals must contain the information outlined above, and meet the minimum criteria listed below. Proposals that do not satisfy minimum criteria will be declined for MAG consideration. • MAG members may not themselves submit workshop proposals, but their institutions may do so; • The subject matter of the workshop proposal must be of direct relevance to Internet Governance; • Proposal must be complete and ready for consideration, with all fields of the proposal submission form completed; • Proposers who held a workshops at previous IGFs were required to have submitted a workshop report after the meeting. The proposer must provide a link to this workshop report in their new proposal for IGF2016. Proposals submitted by those who held workshops in the 2014 or 2015 IGF, but who failed to file a workshop report afterwards, will be declined; • No more than 3 proposals from any one individual or institution will be accepted for consideration. MAG members will have the opportunity to review and discuss declined proposals. The initial screening will be completed by: 13 June, one week following the close of the Call for Proposals. Stage 2: Individual MAG member evaluation Following the initial screening, the IGF Secretariat will circulate the workshop proposals to MAG members for individual evaluation. In evaluating workshop proposals, each MAG member will grade the proposal on a scale from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) based upon the following considerations: 1. Is the proposal well thought-through and complete? 2. Is the proposal relevant to Internet Governance and to the IGF2016 main theme, Enabling Inclusive and Sustainable Growth? 3. Does the proposal contain a list of proposed speakers, participating individuals and organisations, or a description of how different stakeholder perspectives will be represented across the participants? 4. Is this the first time this individual or organization has submitted a workshop proposal to the IGF? (first-time proposers are preferred over repeat proposers), 5. Is the Workshop description consistent with the format listed (for example, if the format is Debate, then does the proposal describe how the debate will be set up, with timings, etc., indicated)? 6. Is the proposal for a new format? (Break-out Group Discussions, Debates, Flash Sessions, Birds of a Feather and Other formats are encouraged over the Panel format), 7. Is there diversity amongst the participants (gender, geography, stakeholder group, policy perspective, and inclusive of persons with disabilities)? (as a general matter, greater diversity is encouraged), 8. Is there developing country participation? (as a general matter, developing country participation is encouraged), 9. Does the description clearly specify the Internet Governance question to be addressed during the workshop? 10. Does the proposal include a well-considered plan for effective interaction with the workshop participants, both online and on-site? MAG members who do not have expertise in a particular field are not obliged to rate a proposal. If a MAG member rates a proposal 3 or below, he or she must provide a reason for doing so, as feedback for the workshop proposers whose workshops are declined. Proposer names will not be given to MAG members when evaluating (anonymous), but indication will be provided if the proposer is from a developing country. Upon receiving the MAG member scoring, with a target date of 4 July, the Secretariat will prepare a synthesis of the evaluation for MAG members by 11 July, in preparation for the in-person meeting during the week of 11-15 July. The total score for each proposal will be the mean average of the grades received by MAG members. Proposals will be rank ordered and accepted according to available space. Stage 3: MAG discussion, identification of merger candidates, and finalization. During the May meeting, MAG members will look at the results to ensure an overall balance of the themes/topics. It is possible that for certain proposals, which scored just below the threshold of space and availability, the MAG will discuss whether to ask the proposers to make improvements to overcome deficiencies. Proposers will then be contacted and asked to submit a revised proposal. In some cases, the MAG will receive workshop proposals that propose the same issues, topics and format. Due to constraints in space, these similar workshops will be invited to collaborate and “merge” together. In this case, the workshop proposers will be contacted by the IGF Secretariat. In the event that the proposers decline to collaborate the workshop slot can be lost. Following the merger process and other necessary arrangements, the IGF programme will then be finalized. Organizational principles: • When scheduling the overall meeting, the IGF Secretariat will strive to ensure that workshop sessions and other events dealing with topics that are addressed in the Main Sessions will not be scheduled at the same time. • To increase participation, the MAG has expressed a general preference for workshop session formats that are not Panels. Therefore Break-out Group Discussions, Debates, BoFs, Flash Session and Other (new and innovative) formats will be preferred over Panel formats. • Workshop organizers are encouraged to bring new faces to their workshop sessions. In order to do so, they can consult with the resource persons list on the IGF website. • All workshop sessions will be webcasted and will have real-time transcription. Organizers are encouraged to seamlessly include online participants. • The rooms reserved for workshop sessions and all equipment, including a screen and a PC or laptop for projections and a projector (XGA/SVGA Data), will be available free of charge. Details related to the logistics will be made available in due course. • Interpretation in the UN six official languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish), as well as the host country language, is only provided free of charge for the Main Sessions. If workshop session organizers would like to have interpretation for their Session, they would need to bear the cost. To have more information about arranging interpretation for your session, please contact the Secretariat at igf[at]unog.ch • The MAG’s workshop evaluation process should be: fair, transparent, inclusive, practical, and efficient. Reporting All Workshops must include a rapporteur, who shall provide a summary report to the IGF Secretariat within two weeks of the IGF meeting. As indicated in Stage 1, above, workshop organizers failing to meet this deadline will not be allowed to hold an event at the following IGF meeting. ==== On 03/06/2016 16:40, Nicolás Echániz wrote: _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3 _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3

I'm afraid to look at my Wikipedia entry because there is too much temptation to quibble over how I'm interpreted :). I don't see the Regulatorium so much a collusion as a system problem based on policies framed in the assumption that intermediaries carry speech much like a railroad carries freight rather than transporting bits apart from their meaning. As with any of my writings I always think I can always do better. The "purpose" piece actually came together quickly one morning and I haven't revisited it because it worked well enough. The real challenge is how to get people to think outside of the telecom framing which is so implicit in the very words we use. I'm open to suggestions. There is some irony because once people understand the power of open, best efforts, connectivity the worries about being restricted can easily turn into worries about it being too easy to communicate. For example drones can be very inexpensive for managing crops but they can also be intrusive. -----Original Message----- From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On Behalf Of willi uebelherr Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 22:30 To: DC3 list <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> Subject: Re: [DC3] IGF 2016 participation Dear Bob, i read your text. Purpose vs Discovery and the Internet as a Dynamic Nov 03, 2009 http://frankston.com/public/?n=PurposeVSDiscovery And in the english Wikipedia i read: "In recent years, Frankston has been an outspoken advocate for reducing the role of telecommunications companies in the evolution of the internet, particularly with respect to broadband and mobile communications.[3][4] He coined the term "Regulatorium" to describe what he considers collusion between telecommunication companies and their regulators that prevents change." This is very interesting for me. I will ask you: How you would write this text in CircleId today? What you would change in the argumentation and/or your focus? many thanks and greetings, willi Manaus, Brasil Am 03/06/2016 um 20:17 schrieb Bob Frankston: --- Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3

Have we submitted the proposal? On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Luca Belli <luca.belli(a)fgv.br> wrote: -- With warm regards, ------------------------------------ *Ritu Srivastava* Senior Programme Manager Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF) 44, III Floor, Kalu Sarai, New Delhi-110016, India *Contact Details:* O: 011-26532786 / 26532787 M: +91-9999369624 Email Id: ritu(a)defindia.net The “Internet Rights” is an initiative through which DEF is consistently making an effort to make Internet as a medium to reach the masses, to create even opportunities and linkages between haves and have-nots so that the grassroots knowledge reaches the economic prosperity and vice-versa through information communication technology and digital media. Join DEF's Internet Rights page at https://www.facebook.com/InternetRights ; Website: http://www.internetrights.in/;

Dear friends, i am not member in the DC3. I know, i can do it on the website. After reading the proposal i will make some spontanic contribution: to 3) Community Connectivity: empowering the unconnected to build and operate their own infrastructure. [maybe not just the unconnected?] empowering the local connectivity to build and operate their own telecommunication infrastructure. But is clear, i realy speak about technical infrastructure and the telecommunication is only a part of that. to 4) the introduction is wrong for me. "(i) policy and regulation; (ii) self governance and sustainability models; (iii) deployment, software and hardware technology iv) how to strenthen community networks" IV you can delete. It is the result of I to III. The order I to III is wrong. I - self governance and sustainability models (normally self-organization) II - deployment, software and hardware technology III - policy and regulation to 8) If it's a 90min session I'd like to have 30min presentations, 30min roundtable discussion, 30min general discussion with the public The most important is the general discussion with the public. This is our field. We can support it with the publishing of all prepared opinions. Then the people know. And maybe, we don't need presentation. Roundtable discussion can be part of public discussion. We act on the equal "footprint". to Carlos Afonso) "Luca, excellent suggestion regarding private sector involvement." I don't find it. many greetings, willi Manaus, Brasil Am 05/06/2016 um 12:45 schrieb Carlos Afonso: --- Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus. https://www.avast.com/antivirus