Agree with the original name, i think the term 'broadband' has too much baggage.. Mike On 18-11-2015 14:14, Ritu Srivastava wrote: _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3

On Thursday 19 November 2015 12:27 AM, Leandro Navarro wrote: (Sorry, Is aid my last email, but saw this just now.) Yes, but is that what this DC is going to focus on ... The issue then shifts from using an appropriate name to what exactly is focus of this DC... Is it similar to that of the mentioned 'connected communities' project and I quote from its website ".....research programme designed to help us understand the changing nature of communities in their historical and cultural contexts and the role of communities in sustaining and enhancing our quality of life. " "The programme addresses a number of core themes including: health and wellbeing <https://connected-communities.org/index.php/cluster/health-well-being/>; creative and digital communities <https://connected-communities.org/index.php/cluster/creative-digital/>; civil society and social innovation <https://connected-communities.org/index.php/cluster/civil/>; environment and sustainability <https://connected-communities.org/index.php/cluster/environment-sustainability/>: heritage <https://connected-communities.org/index.php/cluster/culture-heritage/>; diversity and dissent <https://connected-communities.org/index.php/cluster/diversity-dissent/>; participatory arts <https://connected-communities.org/index.php/cluster/participatory-arts-2/>." " It aims to achieve: new insights into community and new ways of researching community that put arts and humanities at the heart of research and connect academic and community expertise." This substantiates the point I had made earlier about how a 'connected communities' label sounds to me... Is this what is going to be our area of work? I thought we were to focus plain and simple on community ownership of connectivity infrastructure and nothing else , though of course connected facts always remain relevant. just a matter of clear focus. But then I may be wrong about what other people may have in mind as the primary focus of this group. parminder _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3

Luca If by asking whether I can live with it you mean would i leave the group if this name is retained then, no, i wont.... But I remain very uncomfortable with this name, maybe because we also actually work in the area that the term 'connected communities' literally describes. And as now I learn this term is actually used by an existing large scale project and community in this literal meaning. What I cant understand is that when both the literal meaning and current in practice meaning of this term is so different why do we insist on using it. Also, as I read the text on the etherpad that you have set up it is all about 'community networks'. So why would be want to create such a obvious and visible discrepancy in the name of the group, under which we want to work in this very important area. parminder On Thursday 19 November 2015 10:27 PM, Luca Belli wrote:

On Thursday 19 November 2015 08:56 PM, Nicolás Echániz wrote: > Parminder, > Maybe: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity would be better? > (and we can keep the DC3 acronym)

Nico It is certainly better than connected communities.

Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity is more than fine for me :) ________________________________________ De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net] em nome de Nicolás Echániz [nicoechaniz(a)altermundi.net] Enviado: quinta-feira, 19 de novembro de 2015 16:32 Para: dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net Assunto: Re: [DC3] RES: Re: Future IGF Dynamic Coalition on Connected Communities On 11/19/2015 02:16 PM, parminder wrote: Bob is OK with this option, Parminder prefers it, I tend to agree after this discussion. So I propose we keep: *Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity* as the name for this DC. While less "poetic" to my ear, it seems to better describe our purpose and it does not present the bad aspects discussed regarding the first option. Can we agree on this? Is this OK for the rest who shared in this discussion? Luca, Leandro, Mike, Ritu? Cheers, Nico _______________________________________________ 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

On 11/19/2015 02:16 PM, parminder wrote: Bob is OK with this option, Parminder prefers it, I tend to agree after this discussion. So I propose we keep: *Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity* as the name for this DC. While less "poetic" to my ear, it seems to better describe our purpose and it does not present the bad aspects discussed regarding the first option. Can we agree on this? Is this OK for the rest who shared in this discussion? Luca, Leandro, Mike, Ritu? Cheers, Nico _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3

I believe that as long as everyone with ideas to help community networks get more visibility and more adoption can have space in this coalition to push them forward, it's better to let those interested act on them rather than debate pre-emptively. Let's look at the technological aspect as well as the policy and funding aspects. They are not mutually exclusive. I know people in the group more focused on one area or another, we should all harness that potential. Luca, have you been able to present the request to the IGF Secretariat? How long does it take to have the Coalition approved or rejected? Cheers, Nico On 11/22/2015 05:21 PM, dc3(a)bob.ma wrote: _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3

Dear all, it's a pleasure taking part in this discussion on CNs and in the potential dynamic coalition. In between the naming options presented here, I also support "community connectivity" because it's broad and inclusive. I do agree that engineering aspects are very important. I can help making contact with IEEE people (I've developed fieldwork research at the IEEE standards board and the 802 LMSC). They probably have interest in participating on this initiative, especially because they're seeking to expand IEEE's influence at the internet governance field. But, at this point, it seems more important mapping existing CNs to identify their mode of operation, ideas and needs (in terms of local engagement, technical infrastructure and regulation). A set of recommended practices and challenges to overcome must come from the ground, from the ones which are already building and managing CNs. This is already a huge challenge since CNs are quite diverse. We could start by putting together (wiki platform?) all material we know about CNs. Looking foward to work on this with you all. best wishes, Diego Em 23/11/15 03:02, parminder escreveu: particular area. which we Plommer still measured. pull information information. for as robust It in wrote: would to this _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3

Nico and Parminder and all, I have just sent the request to the IGF Secretariat. The consideration of the request usually takes a couple of weeks (or more if the request is not complete). Having worked for the Secretariat and having personally examined requests, I do not see any reason to refuse ours. As regards Parminder point on possible telco trolls, I think we can solve it by developing some basic rules of procedure. As an instance, the Rules of Procedures may state that DC3 members do agree to cooperate in the promotion of community networks and community connectivity efforts. Let's bear in mind that IGF Dynamic Coalitions are open groups and all individuals/stakeholder have the right to participate. However, DC are self-organised groups that could autonomously define their rules. Therefore, possible trolling and bad-faith-stakeholder participation can be avoided clearly stating that DC3 members are committed to the promotion of community connectivity. An example of Rules of Procedure can be found here http://www.networkneutrality.info/about.html Do not worry, rules of procedure do not need to be so legalistic J I think we can start elaborating the rules while we wait for the IGF Secretariat’s approval. We can use this pad. https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/DC3_Rules_of_Procedure https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/DC3_Rules_of_Procedure Also, I think it would be wiser to start collecting all the useful resources that have already been shared by Leandro, Bob and Steve using this pad https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/DC3_Resources As soon as we will have a website, we could publish the resources in a dedicated webpage. Diego proposed a wiki platform, which is also fine but then we will have to transfer all info from the wiki to the website. Diego, if you want to lead with this task, be my guest. Otherwise, I suggest using the pad until the Secretariat approves the DC3 and, then, transfer the content of the pad on a dedicated webpage of the DC3 website. How does it sound? All the best Luca ------------------------------ *De:* dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net] em nome de parminder [parminder(a)itforchange.net] *Enviado:* segunda-feira, 23 de novembro de 2015 3:02 *Para:* dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net *Assunto:* Re: [DC3] RES: Re: Future IGF Dynamic Coalition on Connected Communities I dont fully know how it works with dynamic coalitions (although my organisation did once form one, on Internet principles, which was merged later with that on Internet rights to produce the existing one on Internet rights and principles) but, I wonder if there can be a threshold condition to join the DC, that a person/ org agrees in principle to the value of community based/owned connectivity infrastructure.. I dont want to end up spending a lot of time here arguing with telcos - who obviously lose out wherever a communtiy owned system comes in - why market based approaches are the best in this area as well or some such thing.... As mentioned earlier, I am ready to keep the area broad to include possible local businesses running these system under some level of supervision of the 'community' but that is still not the big telcos. I am not saying the a discussion on whether big telcos of community based systems are better, esp in under-served areas, is not a valid discussion. Only that such a discussion should belong outside the DC space and not inside. parminder On Monday 23 November 2015 08:46 AM, Nicolás Echániz wrote: I believe that as long as everyone with ideas to help community networks get more visibility and more adoption can have space in this coalition to push them forward, it's better to let those interested act on them rather than debate pre-emptively. Let's look at the technological aspect as well as the policy and funding aspects. They are not mutually exclusive. I know people in the group more focused on one area or another, we should all harness that potential. Luca, have you been able to present the request to the IGF Secretariat? How long does it take to have the Coalition approved or rejected? Cheers, Nico On 11/22/2015 05:21 PM, dc3(a)bob.ma wrote: As I explained in my talk at IGF the issue is not so much any particular technology but the way we fund connectivity so that it is free-to-use like sidewalks and roads. I say free-to-use rather than free or open because we need a sustainable funding model with everyone in the community contributing. This works best, initially, with small communities rather than trying to do large cities because then people are aware they are paying for their shared resources rather than it being imposed from afar. The more local the better because it allows us to assume what I am calling “ambient connectivity” in the immediate area. Key to this is understanding the concept of “best efforts” packets which doesn't require assuring that every last packet gets through. Instead we provide resources that anyone can use. This is not just about social networking but about creating technologies that can be used for all purposes such as crop management, environmental monitor and healthcare. I write more about this at http://rmf.vc/FurtherReadingbut it’s a work-in-progress because it requires thinking very differently from how traditional telecommunications works. Bob Frankston http://Frankston.com @BobFrankston *From:*dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net &lt;dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt;] *On Behalf Of *Raoul Plommer *Sent:* Sunday, November 22, 2015 15:11 *To:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity&lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt; &lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt; *Subject:* Re: [DC3] RES: Re: Future IGF Dynamic Coalition on Connected Communities Hello to everyone and sorry for not answering the list sooner. I'm still in Brazil for another ten days and just spent the last four days in the jungle. I am highly motivated to help this project fly, but most of the work will have to wait until I'm back in my cold country from 3rd of December onwards. I think the name Community Networks is more of a household name, so in that sense it might be catchier for the masses. On the other hand, DC3 is a catchier acronym than DCCN. Community Networks and Community Connectivity both suite our purposes as I understand the reason for creating this group, which is to create a source of knowledge to help people build their own networks that can be again linked to each other. At the very least, it should have information on the engineering perspective of those networks, both hardware and software, and collect the best practices on the DC3 website. Like somebody already put it, it's not the name that counts, but what we do for it. This group should start with the engineering, because it is a more accurate science than the other mentioned areas, that this group could be doing. It seems more concrete and the results can be easily measured. Other areas like the legal framework for individual countries' allowed radio frequency should probably follow fairly soon. I feel that the engineering part is the biggest threshold stopping people from creating their own networks and it is something that we should ask for help from groups like IETF and IEEE to decide what those best practices would be. I have an impression that a lot of technical geniuses work in them. The website could be mirrored and hosted in different countries so that it's as accessible as possible, and it'd be important to be able to pull all the available information for offline reading too. I can help in making the website front-end and coordinating things, for I'm not technically that talented. I still want to participate because I think this project can make an immense impact for the connectedness of all mankind. There are also gains in privacy and availability of information to circumvent totalitarian means that obstruct the flows of information. Just the project for a Pirate, and our global political movement can help to push this project forward and start building networks in over fifty countries. We need at least two profiles for the website, rural and urban, but there might be reasons to make more, to differentiate best practices for metropolis-size cities and smaller townships. The equipment should be as cheap as possible without damaging the quality of the network and I think governments could actually chip in to boost the building of robust and resilient networks for their citizens. I've heard rasberry pi is enough to have a node in a MESH-network, but correct me if I'm wrong. It would also be useful to be able to use old computers, because they can be acquired freely and it prolongs their lifespan. I hope I didn't rant on too much, but I wanted to blurt out all the thoughts I've had on this project for many years already. I'm totally in favor of learning some engineering skills for this and I've wanted to setup a MESH-network in Helsinki for a long time already. I'm probably unemployed for quite a while now, so I should have quite a bit of time on my hands. I am really looking forward to working with all of you. Raoul Plommer https://twitter.com/plomm3r https://fb.com/plommer On 20 November 2015 at 10:47, Leandro Navarro <leandro@pangea.org<mailto:leandro@pangea.org> &lt;leandro(a)pangea.org&gt;&gt; wrote: Good to me too, Leandro. On 19/11/15 19:32, Nicolás Echániz wrote: On 11/19/2015 02:16 PM, parminder wrote: On Thursday 19 November 2015 08:56 PM, Nicolás Echániz wrote: Parminder, Maybe: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity would be better? (and we can keep the DC3 acronym) Nico It is certainly better than connected communities. Bob is OK with this option, Parminder prefers it, I tend to agree after this discussion. So I propose we keep: *Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity* as the name for this DC. While less "poetic" to my ear, it seems to better describe our purpose and it does not present the bad aspects discussed regarding the first option. Can we agree on this? Is this OK for the rest who shared in this discussion? Luca, Leandro, Mike, Ritu? Cheers, Nico _______________________________________________ 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