Thanks for doing all this very important and laborious work.
On Friday 26 February 2016 09:19 PM, Luca Belli wrote:
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.
Yes, that is very important, and best done as early as possible,
preferably right away so that people know what are they working together
Perhaps it would be better to provide a working
connectivity and to define community networks as an enabler of
connectivity, building on the definition provided by Parminder. What
do you think?
I beg to differ. The key word here is 'community' and not connectivity -
even if the former - as a model of providing connectivity, in merely
instrumental towards the latter, being connected. I dont think there are
any contestation anywhere about what is connectivity (if there are, like
the Free Basics debate that belongs to the NN discourse). we all know
what connectivity is, the focus of this group IMHO is a particular model
of providing universal connectivity. And this model is of direct or
mediated community ownership. That is central, We are not about
connectivity, as for instance Airtel in India or Telemar in Brazil is
about connectivity. That is what a telco is.
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.
Agree, we should go down this path.
Such an exercise has worked quite well with DC on
providing usefull info to the IGF community. We could try to elaborate
a report on 'sustainable connectivity' or something along these lines.
This illustrates what I posited was the problem in the earlier part of
my email - if we begin to take focus away from 'community' and beginning
to talk about connectivity generally. I simply dont think, that may just
be my view right now, that this DC is about that. I am not saying that
private models are not ok or do not work... IN many places they may work
perfectly well, so well, and such is the demographics there that there
may simple be no need or place for community networks .
Sustainable connectivity firstly right now does not mean anything to
me, and even if we begin to work on producing a meaning for it , it does
not seem to stay in the remit for which I think the group came together..
We have several months and many amongst us have
already material ready
to be (re)published.
[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
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.
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] *On Behalf Of *Luca Belli
*Sent:* Thursday, February 18, 2016 08:07
*To:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
*Subject:* [DC3] RES: Habemus Domain Name!
[mailto:email@example.com] *Em nome de *Raoul Plommer
*Enviada em:* terça-feira, 16 de fevereiro de 2016 07:02
*Para:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
*Assunto:* Re: [DC3] Habemus Domain Name!
That's great, I made the page on
and will start building it
soon. Maureen, send me an email and I will answer with credentials. :)
On 16 February 2016 at 07:53, parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net
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
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.
On Monday 15 February 2016 08:11 PM, Luca Belli wrote:
Thanks for your inputs regarding the DC3 domain name. The most
voted one is 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
The basic webpages we need are: About, Members, Sources,
News&Ideas. I have just compiled the material we already have
This is just a suggestion. Feel free to develop the webpages
content as you prefer.
Also, here are the Draft 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
FGV Direito Rio
*Luca Belli, PhD*
/Pesquisador | Researcher /
/Lead of *Internet Governance @ FGV
+55 21 3799 *5763*
DC3 mailing list
DC3 mailing list
DC3 mailing list