New subject: RES: DECLARATION Was: Neutrality of technology in the Guadalajara declaration

12 Dec 2016

Hi all,

I agree with Roul that modifications to the text of the Declaration should be discussed on
the DC3 mailing list, so that everyone has the possibility to provide feedback.
Several modifications were proposed last week and I think we should have a couple weeks to
carefully read and discuss them.

Here is the pad with the latest version of the Declaration
https://pad.codigosur.org/GuadalajaraDeclaration
Please take your time to read it and to express your feedback, so that we can consolidate
all comments into a consensus document.

Given that many of us will have holydays over the next weeks, I propose DC3 members
provide their feedback on the latest version of the declaration by 3 January.
All the best
Luca
[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

[http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]

De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome
de Raoul Plommer
Enviada em: sábado, 10 de dezembro de 2016 23:22
Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity &lt;dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net&gt;
Assunto: [DC3] Neutrality of technology in the Guadalajara declaration

Dear all,

There was quite a bit of disagreement on the language used in the declaration, partially
because the sentence was added there only today, without the acceptance wider community. I
think it was poor judgement to add it today without any discussion with all the members of
our Dynamic Coalition. However, now that it's out there, and we ended up spending
almost two hours of our precious time on these sudden additions, we might as well include
this, admittedly fair point. Here are my proposals of the different variations on just one
sentence that could be used instead.

One of the sentences that was discussed, is as follows:

"We acknowledge that communication technology is not neutral and can exacerbate
unequal power relations in the community."

...and here are my suggestions. I wrote the crucial changes in bold:

1) We acknowledge that communication technologies are not always neutral and can
exacerbate unequal power relations in the community.

2) We acknowledge that the usage of communication technology is not neutral and can
exacerbate unequal power relations in the community.

3) We acknowledge that community networks are not neutral and can exacerbate unequal power
relations in the community.

As you can see, my suggestions are not making that much change to the spirit of the
meaning, but just wording it differently will actually make our statement more accurate
and popular, as well as less controversial. The declaration should really alienate as few
people as possible and we really need to keep that in mind, while still making a
definitive statement that is actually saying something.

I.e. the hammer itself IS neutral (although people with no hands won't be able to use
it properly. Also, we're all babies at some point and babies won't be able to
lift the hammer). It is really the usage of the hammer that can be used in non-neutral way
and is the most important acknowledgement, that we DO need for this specific declaration.
My first suggestion captures this point of view sufficiently enough.

I feel that all of us agreed on the spirit of the sentence, and I also think that my first
suggestion is the one that would really be the best for our purposes. It takes into the
account the fact, that community networks can be misused (for example, in an unequal way
considering gender), but it's not saying that community networks are not neutral by
default. Even if they were (and I don't think they are), I feel that's an
unnecessarily negative statement and we should avoid those in our otherwise very positive
vision.

Somebody suggested to use a differentiating platform (like GitHub?) for the comparison of
the crucial sentences and paragraphs in the declaration and I think that's a very
good idea. Then we can vote on different versions of them and decide which ones are the
best for our purposes. We obviously need to build consensus on our constitution and
hopefully the output of that will be a declaration/constitution that we can all agree
on.

Thanks,

-Raoul