I consider maybe we shouldn't be talking about square miles o km but miles,
to unify the point that is being address. The term "last mile" has been the
most used to described the ecosystem where CN are deployed, but also,
considering we are proposing a bottom-top approach, I will support we start
talking not about the last mile, but the first mile (as Altermundi has
2. Community networks: When we discuss who can operationalised the CN we
mention local stakeholders, NGO's, private sector entities and/or public
administrations, even knowing many cases are covered in those definitions I
think we could add academia parties
c. free and open software technologies, I agree this must be something we
encourage but it's not something always possible so to me, this must be
something we recomend
ef) free peering and transit: I would add this must be done while
encouraging fundamental respect of licenses, copyright, etc...
Finally I think we should publish the statement in at least 3 languages
(english of course, spanish and portuguese) count on me to the translation
and any other assistance you need.
2016-10-20 18:37 GMT-04:00 Leandro Navarro <leandro(a)pangea.org>rg>:
On 20/10/16 15:51, Luca Belli wrote:
I agree with substituting square miles with km. Metric systems seems
indeed slightly more widespread J
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/
And here the IGF programme http://www.intgovforum.org/
[image: FGV Direito Rio]
*Luca Belli, PhD*
*Head of **Internet Governance @ FGV <http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>*
+55 21 3799 *5763*
*De:* dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.
<dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net>] *Em nome de *Leandro
*Enviada em:* quarta-feira, 19 de outubro de 2016 21:03
*Para:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity
*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
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
g) as a preference comes directly from c) I'd remove
Alternative to the current h) to follow the pattern of: x) point:
h) safety: security and privacy in the design and operation
- 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:
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
De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
<dc3-bounces(a)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
On 10/18/2016 06:29 PM, Luca Belli wrote:
Many thanks for your inputs on the Declaration.
I have tried to slightly edit the text (particularly the preamble) to
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*.
All the best
FGV Direito Rio
*Luca Belli, PhD*
/Head of /*/Internet Governance @ FGV
+55 21 3799 *5763*//
DC3 mailing list
DC3 mailing list
DC3 mailing list
DC3 mailing list
Maureen Patricia Hernández González
Systems Engineer. Universidad de Los Andes.