Perhaps (h) could be slightly rephrased as follows h) the consideration of security and privacy concerns while designing and operating the network

-----Mensagem original----- De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Nicolás Echániz Enviada em: terça-feira, 18 de outubro de 2016 21:23 Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> Assunto: Re: [DC3] Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0 regarding point h) security and privacy are components of network design and operation. ... although this sounds good, I don't see it generally implemented in most community networks I know of. This could be a point for discussion for the future, but it seems incorrect (from our perspective) to express it in this way right now. Maybe Christian, who added it has other information which makes this a valid point for the definition right now. Maybe if we rephrase it to express an intention instead of something that's currently being done it is ok. I also added on point c) of the Policy section something regarding Dynamic Spectrum for secondary use... this is not exactly unlicensed spectrum so I think the distintion is important. cheers! Nico On 10/18/2016 06:29 PM, Luca Belli 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

This is a question I sometimes ask – are terms like “last mile” idiomatic rather than referring to an actual mile? Even worse is when you have a naïve translator writing about the last 1.6 km. If indeed “last mile” is idiomatic then “first square mile” works and “first km2” isn’t quite the same play on meme. From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On Behalf Of Luca Belli Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:51 To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net> Subject: [DC3] RES: RES: Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0 Hi Leandro, I agree with substituting square miles with km. Metric systems seems indeed slightly more widespread :) http://www.zmescience.com/other/map-of-countries-officially-not-using- the-me tric-system/ also a good idea to merge 2.e and 2.f (free peering and transit) As regards 2.c (open design) and 2.g (free and open software and tech), I think you raise a good point I would not consider them as redundant. On the contrary, I would rather re-order them to stress that CN should be based on the use of free and open software and tech AND the resulting design should ALSO be published and accessible to everyone. So I suggest moving 2.g (free and open software and tech) right

As regards, logistics, we have 5 confirmed events the Pre-event and Disco-Tech, on 5 Dec; our workshop (N 238 on Community Connectivity) and the DC3 annual meeting on 7 Dec; and the Post-IGF event Here my original mail on IGF Activities http://listas.altermundi.net/pipermail/dc3/2016-September/000307.html And here the IGF programme http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download /12/12 3 Best Luca <http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Marca_FGV_Dire ito_Ri o.png> Luca Belli, PhD Senior Researcher Head of <http://internet-governance.fgv.br/> Internet Governance @ FGV luca.belli(a)fgv.br <mailto:luca.belli@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> [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Leandro Navarro Enviada em: quarta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2016 21:03 Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity &lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> > Assunto: Re: [DC3] RES: Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0 Hi, edits, comments and questions: I'd remove "of equal importance". It's a bit obvious/redundant (marked but not removed) capitalized Internet, i18n: mile -> Km Proposed (but not done): e and f could be merged to make it more compact and readable: e+f) Free traffic: transit and peering to other networks in reciprocal e+terms g) as a preference comes directly from c) I'd remove Alternative to the current h) to follow the pattern of: x) point: description h) safety: security and privacy in the design and operation Logistics: - We finally don't have pre-event/day-0 event? (5/12) - Anything to prepare/discuss for our workshop during IGF? - I understand we still have the post-event on Saturday 10th on Community Nets. Any idea for the program to discuss? + We'd like to spend with you some time discussing training materials about community networks we're preparing, among other topics. + In the netcommons.eu project we've produced several studies that we can outline, and get help to generalize from a mostly European focus. Any suggestion about accommodation? :-) See you in Guadalajara, Leandro. On 19/10/16 20:35, Luca Belli wrote: Hi Nico, You are rising a valid point. Perhaps (h) could be slightly rephrased as follows h) the consideration of security and privacy concerns while designing and operating the network -----Mensagem original----- De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net> [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Nicolás Echániz Enviada em: terça-feira, 18 de outubro de 2016 21:23 Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net> &lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt; Assunto: Re: [DC3] Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0 regarding point h) security and privacy are components of network design and operation. ... although this sounds good, I don't see it generally implemented in most community networks I know of. This could be a point for discussion for the future, but it seems incorrect (from our perspective) to express it in this way right now. Maybe Christian, who added it has other information which makes this a valid point for the definition right now. Maybe if we rephrase it to express an intention instead of something that's currently being done it is ok. I also added on point c) of the Policy section something regarding Dynamic Spectrum for secondary use... this is not exactly unlicensed spectrum so I think the distintion is important. cheers! Nico On 10/18/2016 06:29 PM, Luca Belli wrote: Dear all, Many thanks for your inputs on the Declaration. I have tried to slightly edit the text (particularly the preamble) to improve readability. I hope all comments are now reflected properly, particularly the latest comments provided by Federica, Coenraad and Marcelo. Please do not hesitate to modify the text using the pad or share any further feedback *by 25 October*. https://pad.codigosur.org/GuadalajaraDeclaration All the best Luca FGV Direito Rio *Luca Belli, PhD* /Senior Researcher/ /Head of /*/Internet Governance @ FGV <http://internet-governance.fgv.br/> <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(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net> https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3 _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net> https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3 _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@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

This is a question I sometimes ask – are terms like “last mile”

idiomatic rather than referring to an actual mile? Even worse is when

you have a naïve translator writing about the last 1.6 km. If indeed

“last mile” is idiomatic then “first square mile” works and “first

km^2 ” isn’t quite the same play on meme.

On 26 Oct 2016, at 05:20, Carlos Rey-Moreno &lt;carlos.reymoreno(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Hi all, apologies for jumping in late. The declaration reads very well, congratulations to everyone for the work! I have one major concern, though: Concern: The beginning of the document is not entirely true: "Over three billion people do not have access to communication infrastructure". While there is common agreement that there are only 3 billion people connected to (using) the Internet, that does not mean that they do not have access to communications. For instance, the ITU shows that coverage for both GSM and 3G networks is way beyond that number [1]. Other reasons may explain this gap, affordability, lack of relevant content, confidence/skills, etc, but not lack of access. Thus, we may need to rephrase that sentence if we don't want people to criticize the Declaration right from the start. I suggest: "Over four billion people remain unconnected to the Internet, including around a billion who do not have access to basic telephony services". I hope this can be included despite arriving slightly late. By the way, in Community Informatics and other academic circles "first mile" is widely used, and I think we should use it here. Specially, because it was conceptualized within K-net [2], a successful example of providing connectivity to communities by communities in the First Nations in Northern Canada [3]. It would be interesting to know if they would subscribe the Declaration. Best, carlos [1] http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx <http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx> [2] http://firstmile.ca/ <http://firstmile.ca/> [3] http://knet.ca/ <http://knet.ca/> On 26 October 2016 at 00:27, &lt;dc3(a)bob.ma <mailto:dc3@bob.ma>> wrote: Just as a reminder about idioms. Making some flight reservations - the points are called "miles" even on Air France <image002.jpg>   <> -----Original Message----- From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net> [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net <mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net>] On Behalf Of Nicolás Echániz Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 19:53 To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity &lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:dc3@listas.altermundi.net>> Subject: Re: [DC3] RES: RES: Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0 On 10/20/2016 12:00 PM, dc3(a)bob.ma <mailto:dc3@bob.ma> wrote: I also think of "last mile" as not referring to an actual mile nowadays. The "distance" from "last mile" to "first square kilometer" takes out the fun in the expression :P I prefer "first square mile" or even "first mile" when it's written and "first square mile" when we are talking and can explain the concept a bit. I've found the coincidence of many people with an alternative view on the Internet using the expression "first mile"; it's sort of "already out there". Cheers! Nico _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net> https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3 <https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3> _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net> https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3 <https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3> -- Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD PostDoctoral Fellow University of the Western Cape Zenzeleni Networks: zenzeleni.net <http://zenzeleni.net/> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxTPSWMX26M <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxTPSWMX26M> Cel: +27 (0) 76 986 3633 Skype: carlos.reymoreno Twitter: Creym _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3

This is an important point and why I say we have an economic rather than a technical problem. I’m working on a talk now and am going to start by asking why we don’t worry about consuming sidewalks (or, perhaps, in these cases dirt paths) nor our quota of steps. But when it comes to communicating – speech – we worry about using up our quota of words? Very strange. If we simply paid for those radios as common infrastructure “access” would be assumed. The other issue is the word “access”? Where is this Internet we are accessing. We are really trying to interconnect with each other and some of the “others” are information sources. But people can also be supplying knowledge and sharing. As to “mile”. The problem with “first” and “last” mile is that it is based on the legacy model of telecommunications as a series of pipes rather than peer connectivity that is about interconnecting locally as well as global. The term “first square mile” is a play on that that emphasizes this interconnectivity. *From:* dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas. altermundi.net] *On Behalf Of *Carlos Rey-Moreno *Sent:* Wednesday, October 26, 2016 00:21 *To:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity < dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt; *Subject:* Re: [DC3] RES: RES: Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0 Hi all, apologies for jumping in late. The declaration reads very well, congratulations to everyone for the work! I have one major concern, though: Concern: The beginning of the document is not entirely true: "Over three billion people do not have access to communication infrastructure". While there is common agreement that there are only 3 billion people connected to (using) the Internet, that does not mean that they do not have access to communications. For instance, the ITU shows that coverage for both GSM and 3G networks is way beyond that number [1]. Other reasons may explain this gap, affordability, lack of relevant content, confidence/skills, etc, but not lack of access. Thus, we may need to rephrase that sentence if we don't want people to criticize the Declaration right from the start. I suggest: "Over four billion people remain unconnected to the Internet, including around a billion who do not have access to basic telephony services". I hope this can be included despite arriving slightly late. By the way, in Community Informatics and other academic circles "first mile" is widely used, and I think we should use it here. Specially, because it was conceptualized within K-net [2], a successful example of providing connectivity to communities by communities in the First Nations in Northern Canada [3]. It would be interesting to know if they would subscribe the Declaration. Best, carlos [1] http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/facts/default.aspx [2] http://firstmile.ca/ [3] http://knet.ca/ On 26 October 2016 at 00:27, &lt;dc3(a)bob.ma&gt; wrote: Just as a reminder about idioms. Making some flight reservations - the points are called "miles" even on Air France -----Original Message----- From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas. altermundi.net] On Behalf Of Nicolás Echániz Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 19:53 To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity &lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net Subject: Re: [DC3] RES: RES: Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0 On 10/20/2016 12:00 PM, dc3(a)bob.ma wrote: I also think of "last mile" as not referring to an actual mile nowadays. The "distance" from "last mile" to "first square kilometer" takes out the fun in the expression :P I prefer "first square mile" or even "first mile" when it's written and "first square mile" when we are talking and can explain the concept a bit. I've found the coincidence of many people with an alternative view on the Internet using the expression "first mile"; it's sort of "already out there". 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 -- Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD PostDoctoral Fellow University of the Western Cape Zenzeleni Networks: zenzeleni.net https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxTPSWMX26M Cel: +27 (0) 76 986 3633 Skype: carlos.reymoreno Twitter: Creym _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3

As regards 2.c (open design) and 2.g (free and open software and tech), I think you raise a good point I would not consider them as redundant. On the contrary, I would rather re-order them to stress that CN should be based on the use of free and open software and tech AND the resulting design should ALSO be published and accessible to everyone. So I suggest moving 2.g (free and open software and tech) right before open design.

As regards, logistics, we have 5 confirmed events the Pre-event and Disco-Tech, on 5 Dec; our workshop (N 238 on Community Connectivity) and the DC3 annual meeting on 7 Dec; and the Post-IGF event Here my original mail on IGF Activities http://listas.altermundi.net/pipermail/dc3/2016-September/000307.html And here the IGF programme http://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/12/1… Best Luca Luca Belli, PhD Senior Researcher Head of Internet Governance @ FGVluca.belli(a)fgv.br +55 21 3799 5763 De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Leandro Navarro Enviada em: quarta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2016 21:03 Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity &lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt; Assunto: Re: [DC3] RES: Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0 Hi, edits, comments and questions: I'd remove "of equal importance". It's a bit obvious/redundant (marked but not removed) capitalized Internet, i18n: mile -> Km Proposed (but not done): e and f could be merged to make it more compact and readable: e+f) Free traffic: transit and peering to other networks in reciprocal terms g) as a preference comes directly from c) I'd remove Alternative to the current h) to follow the pattern of: x) point: description h) safety: security and privacy in the design and operation Logistics: - We finally don't have pre-event/day-0 event? (5/12) - Anything to prepare/discuss for our workshop during IGF? - I understand we still have the post-event on Saturday 10th on Community Nets. Any idea for the program to discuss? + We'd like to spend with you some time discussing training materials about community networks we're preparing, among other topics. + In the netcommons.eu project we've produced several studies that we can outline, and get help to generalize from a mostly European focus. Any suggestion about accommodation? :-) See you in Guadalajara, Leandro. On 19/10/16 20:35, Luca Belli wrote: Hi Nico, You are rising a valid point. Perhaps (h) could be slightly rephrased as follows h) the consideration of security and privacy concerns while designing and operating the network -----Mensagem original----- De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome de Nicolás Echániz Enviada em: terça-feira, 18 de outubro de 2016 21:23 Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity &lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt; Assunto: Re: [DC3] Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0 regarding point h) security and privacy are components of network design and operation. ... although this sounds good, I don't see it generally implemented in most community networks I know of. This could be a point for discussion for the future, but it seems incorrect (from our perspective) to express it in this way right now. Maybe Christian, who added it has other information which makes this a valid point for the definition right now. Maybe if we rephrase it to express an intention instead of something that's currently being done it is ok. I also added on point c) of the Policy section something regarding Dynamic Spectrum for secondary use... this is not exactly unlicensed spectrum so I think the distintion is important. cheers! Nico On 10/18/2016 06:29 PM, Luca Belli wrote: Dear all, Many thanks for your inputs on the Declaration. I have tried to slightly edit the text (particularly the preamble) to improve readability. I hope all comments are now reflected properly, particularly the latest comments provided by Federica, Coenraad and Marcelo. Please do not hesitate to modify the text using the pad or share any further feedback *by 25 October*. https://pad.codigosur.org/GuadalajaraDeclaration All the best Luca FGV Direito Rio *Luca Belli, PhD* /Senior Researcher/ /Head of /*/Internet Governance @ FGV <http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>/*//luca.belli@fgv.br +55 21 3799 *5763*// http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 20/10/16 15:51, Luca Belli wrote: Hi Leandro, I agree with substituting square miles with km. Metric systems seems indeed slightly more widespread J http://www.zmescience.com/other/map-of-countries- officially-not-using-the-metric-system/ also a good idea to merge 2.e and 2.f (free peering and transit) As regards 2.c (open design) and 2.g (free and open software and tech), I think you raise a good point I would not consider them as redundant. On the contrary, I would rather re-order them to stress that CN should be based on the use of free and open software and tech AND the resulting design should ALSO be published and accessible to everyone. So I suggest moving 2.g (free and open software and tech) right before open design. Hi, but we have to decide if these items are a characterisation or our wish list, as these items are currently preceded in the doc by "...and are characterised by the following points". Unfortunately to my opinion too, many CN do not use free and open software and tech, at least not entirely. Therefore we are not "characterising" as we say but defining aims/ideals and therefore shortening the list of candidates. It's also contradictory to characterise and then describe this item as "are prefered". I doubt that this is a common characteristic, but I agree is a nice aim. Open HW is still far away, with many hw designs and firmware still in closed source, even operating systems. Several CN partially or completely use commercial closed-source routers as black boxes (e.g. Ubiquity or Mikrotik or diverse optical equipment) just because it works or is easier for them, but still I believe these network infrastructures can be safely characterised as community networks. Contrary to my personal values, but I'd prefer to define the list as essential/main features that describe existing community networks out there and let the communities learn, decide, evolve, improve, avoiding us having a restrictive characterisation. Of course, the definition should effectively delimit those that are clearly not CN, but being respectful to diversity and local choices. Perhaps ideas like this would fit into section 4, as the promotion, adoption and development of FOSS and open hw solutions by industry, developers and communities would be very beneficial to all CNs. Thanks a lot for the details about the events. I hope this would help everyone to plan their trips. My plan is arriving on the 3rd at midnight and leaving on the 11th. See you, Leandro. As regards, logistics, we have 5 confirmed events the *Pre-event* and *Disco-Tech*, on 5 Dec; our *workshop (N 238* on Community Connectivity) and the *DC3 annual meeting* on 7 Dec; and *the Post-IGF event* Here my original mail on IGF Activities http://listas.altermundi.net/ pipermail/dc3/2016-September/000307.html And here the IGF programme http://www.intgovforum.org/ multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/12/123 Best Luca [image: 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* [image: http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png] *De:* dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas. altermundi.net &lt;dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt;] *Em nome de *Leandro Navarro *Enviada em:* quarta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2016 21:03 *Para:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity &lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt; &lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt; *Assunto:* Re: [DC3] RES: Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0 Hi, edits, comments and questions: I'd remove "of equal importance". It's a bit obvious/redundant (marked but not removed) capitalized Internet, i18n: mile -> Km Proposed (but not done): e and f could be merged to make it more compact and readable: e+f) Free traffic: transit and peering to other networks in reciprocal terms g) as a preference comes directly from c) I'd remove Alternative to the current h) to follow the pattern of: x) point: description h) safety: security and privacy in the design and operation Logistics: - We finally don't have pre-event/day-0 event? (5/12) - Anything to prepare/discuss for our workshop during IGF? - I understand we still have the post-event on Saturday 10th on Community Nets. Any idea for the program to discuss? + We'd like to spend with you some time discussing training materials about community networks we're preparing, among other topics. + In the netcommons.eu project we've produced several studies that we can outline, and get help to generalize from a mostly European focus. Any suggestion about accommodation? :-) See you in Guadalajara, Leandro. On 19/10/16 20:35, Luca Belli wrote: Hi Nico, You are rising a valid point. Perhaps (h) could be slightly rephrased as follows h) the consideration of security and privacy concerns while designing and operating the network -----Mensagem original----- De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net &lt;dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt;] Em nome de Nicolás Echániz Enviada em: terça-feira, 18 de outubro de 2016 21:23 Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity &lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt; &lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt; Assunto: Re: [DC3] Declaration on Community Connectivity v.1.0 regarding point h) security and privacy are components of network design and operation. ... although this sounds good, I don't see it generally implemented in most community networks I know of. This could be a point for discussion for the future, but it seems incorrect (from our perspective) to express it in this way right now. Maybe Christian, who added it has other information which makes this a valid point for the definition right now. Maybe if we rephrase it to express an intention instead of something that's currently being done it is ok. I also added on point c) of the Policy section something regarding Dynamic Spectrum for secondary use... this is not exactly unlicensed spectrum so I think the distintion is important. cheers! Nico On 10/18/2016 06:29 PM, Luca Belli wrote: Dear all, Many thanks for your inputs on the Declaration. I have tried to slightly edit the text (particularly the preamble) to improve readability. I hope all comments are now reflected properly, particularly the latest comments provided by Federica, Coenraad and Marcelo. Please do not hesitate to modify the text using the pad or share any further feedback *by 25 October*. https://pad.codigosur.org/GuadalajaraDeclaration All the best Luca FGV Direito Rio *Luca Belli, PhD* /Senior Researcher/ /Head of /*/Internet Governance @ FGV <http://internet-governance.fgv.br/> <http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>/*//luca.belli@fgv.br +55 21 3799 *5763*// http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ DC3 mailing list DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3 _______________________________________________ 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

Contrary to my personal values, but I'd prefer to define the list as essential/main features that describe existing community networks out there and let the communities learn, decide, evolve, improve, avoiding us having a restrictive characterisation. Of course, the definition should effectively delimit those that are clearly not CN, but being respectful to diversity and local choices. Perhaps ideas like this would fit into section 4, as the promotion, adoption and development of FOSS and open hw solutions by industry, developers and communities would be very beneficial to all CNs.