DC3 Community Networks: Digital Sovereignty and Sustainability | IGF 2023

Audience

In marginalized and conflict-ridden areas like favelas in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, telecom operators do not provide internet or telephony services due to security concerns. This lack of connectivity has become even more pronounced during the pandemic, making it increasingly challenging for residents to access vital resources and opportunities. However, community networks present a potential solution to connect these marginalized communities and offer alternatives.

Building antennas for community networks was initially considered as a viable option for providing internet access in favelas. Nevertheless, due to security risks and potential threats to life, it was decided not to proceed with this approach. This reflects the complex challenges and constraints faced in these areas.

Digital inclusion goes beyond simply implementing community networks. It also involves educating communities about the numerous opportunities that connectivity provides and how it can empower them to change their realities. This comprehensive approach aims to bridge the digital divide and ensure that everyone has access to the benefits brought by the internet.

Concerns about digital sovereignty have also been raised in the context of community networks. While community networks can foster independence and self-determination, some worry that emphasizing digital sovereignty may hinder cooperation and collaboration between different stakeholders. Striking a balance between digital sovereignty and collaboration is crucial for the success of community network initiatives.

Another important consideration is the lack of clarity regarding the definition and representation of the “community” in community networks. Understanding who constitutes the community and their role is essential for effective and inclusive decision-making and resource allocation. This issue highlights the need for greater transparency and inclusivity when implementing community network projects.

Moreover, there is concern about the reliance on mainstream platforms like Zoom and YouTube, which can contradict the ideals of digital sovereignty. While these platforms provide connectivity, their centralization compromises autonomy and control over digital infrastructure.

Community networks, while not a complete solution, can complement other initiatives and bring culture and communication to marginalized communities. They have the potential to act as intranets, providing connectivity and safeguarding those already connected.

Community networks can also be seen as an expression of digital sovereignty and self-determination. By allowing local communities to master their own digital destinies, community networks enable them to shape their digital experiences and use technology as per their preferences and needs.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the IOMEC coalition on community connectivity provide valuable platforms for discussing community connectivity issues and finding solutions. These initiatives facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing among stakeholders interested in bridging the digital divide and promoting community networks.

In Nigeria, community networks have been successfully used for citizen science projects. Through community networks, internet connectivity was provided to monitor air pollution and oil spills. This example showcases the potential of community networks in addressing community issues and delivering value-added services.

In conclusion, connectivity remains a significant challenge in marginalized communities, especially in conflict-ridden areas. Community networks offer a potential solution to address this issue and provide alternatives to traditional telecom operators. However, building and sustaining community networks requires addressing security concerns, promoting digital inclusion, balancing digital sovereignty with cooperation, ensuring representation, and expanding partnerships and collaborations.

Carlos Baca

The analysis reveals several important points made by the speakers regarding the relationship between capacity building, sustainability, and community networks. Firstly, it is highlighted that national schools of community networks have been established in several countries to teach, implement, and support community networks. One of the key focuses of these schools is to educate communities about sustainability and e-waste management. Through these capacity-building processes, communities can develop a critical understanding of technology and strategies for sustainability. As a result of participating in these initiatives, sustainable strategies have been developed, such as the creation of bamboo towers in Indonesia and the use of AI for efficient fishing and farming practices. These examples demonstrate how capacity building can lead to innovative and sustainable solutions.

Secondly, the speakers emphasize the significance of peer-to-peer learning and technical know-how in contributing to environmental sustainability within community networks. The analysis highlights community networks in Kenya and South Africa that have effectively transmitted technical knowledge among community members. This knowledge exchange has resulted in improved equipment usage and reduced waste. By harnessing the power of peer-to-peer learning, the need for external technical assistance is reduced, leading to decreased travel and waste. This indicates that empowering communities with technical skills and knowledge can lead to more sustainable practices and self-sufficiency.

Furthermore, the analysis underlines the transformative power of travelling and visiting other territories in inspiring communities to reevaluate their own territories. Notably, participants in South Africa who had never left their communities began to rethink their own territories after observing different ways of living in other areas. This insight suggests that exposing communities to diverse perspectives and experiences through travel and learning can foster the development of sustainable cities and communities.

The analysis also highlights the importance of local content and production in the context of community networks. It is asserted that local content production is integral to the development and sustainability of community networks. By promoting local content and production, community networks can enhance local ownership, creativity, and cultural preservation. This observation underscores the significance of involving local communities as active participants in the design and operation of community networks to achieve sustainable outcomes.

In addition, the analysis addresses the concept of digital sovereignty and argues that it should not be viewed as a black and white concept. Rather, it should be understood as a process that involves understanding risks and making informed decisions. The speakers highlight the need for communities using platforms such as Zoom or Facebook to understand the implications of their use and make autonomous decisions. This argument suggests that digital sovereignty is contingent upon communities’ independent and informed choices regarding the use of digital tools and platforms.

Furthermore, the analysis delves into the complex and necessary element of negotiation with violent elements in rural areas. In particular, the involvement of Narcos in Mexico is acknowledged as they assist in developing infrastructure due to personal benefits. The speakers convey that while negotiating with violent elements is challenging, it is an essential aspect of working in rural areas, particularly when seeking to establish community connectivity in these regions.

Lastly, the analysis highlights the essential role of capacity building in achieving digital sovereignty. It is emphasized that autonomy in digital decision-making requires communities to have access to sufficient information and understanding of associated risks. With capacity building, communities can develop the skills and knowledge necessary to make informed decisions and navigate digital realms effectively. This observation underscores the importance of quality education and increasing access to digital infrastructure to empower communities in the pursuit of digital sovereignty.

In conclusion, the extended analysis sheds light on the interconnections between capacity building, sustainability, and community networks. It highlights the transformative impact of capacity-building processes on community networks, resulting in the development of sustainable strategies. Peer-to-peer learning and technical know-how within community networks are shown to contribute to environmental sustainability by reducing waste and promoting self-sufficiency. Additionally, the importance of travel and exposure to different perspectives in promoting sustainable cities and communities is highlighted. The significance of local content and production, autonomous decision-making in digital realms, negotiating with violent elements in rural areas, and the indispensable role of capacity building in achieving digital sovereignty are also explored. Overall, the analysis provides valuable insights into the critical elements required for the success and sustainability of community networks.

Senka Hadzic

During the session, the speakers focused on community networks and their role in digital sovereignty. The first speaker, an Internet measurement and data expert from the Internet Society, provided an overview of ISOC’s work on community networks and the significance of digital sovereignty.

ISOC’s work in community networks highlights the importance of empowering local communities to take control of their own digital infrastructure and services. By building and managing their own networks, communities can enhance their connectivity, bridging the digital divide and ensuring reliable and affordable internet access for all. This approach promotes digital inclusivity and helps overcome dependence on centralised telecommunications providers, fostering a sense of ownership and autonomy within the community.

Moreover, the first speaker emphasised the role of community networks in promoting digital sovereignty. Digital sovereignty refers to a nation’s ability to exercise control and maintain authority over its digital infrastructure, policies, and data. Community networks play a crucial role in achieving digital sovereignty by placing control of the network infrastructure in the hands of the community rather than relying on external companies or service providers. This shift gives communities the power to shape their own digital ecosystems, enabling them to protect their data, privacy, and interests.

The second speaker, Pedro Vilches from GrifiNet in Catalonia, focused on their flagship community network, which has been operational for almost 20 years and boasts over 37,000 active nodes. GrifiNet not only provides connectivity but also actively promotes circular economy principles and the reduction of e-waste.

GrifiNet’s emphasis on the circular economy involves encouraging the community to reuse and recycle electronic devices and reduce electronic waste. By doing so, GrifiNet aims to minimise the environmental impact associated with e-waste and create a more sustainable and environmentally friendly approach to technology.

Overall, the session highlighted the multiple benefits of community networks in achieving digital sovereignty. By empowering communities to build and manage their own networks, individuals gain access to reliable and affordable internet connectivity while also fostering a sense of ownership and control over their digital infrastructure. Additionally, the emphasis on circular economy principles by networks like GrifiNet showcases the potential for community networks to drive sustainability in the digital realm.

Nils Brock

In a recent publication titled “Can Environmental Practices Foster Community Network Sustainability?”, the challenges, benefits, and future prospects of community networks were discussed. The publication highlighted the difficulties that community networks face in managing the various technologies involved and ensuring the successful transmission of signals for local networks. These challenges emphasize the need for effective management and technical expertise within community networks.

However, the publication also noted that community networks can operate in a complementary or alternative manner to standard internet providers. This suggests that community networks have the potential to offer unique advantages and fill gaps in connectivity that traditional providers may not address. It is important, however, to consider the potential for external providers with different business models to undermine the efforts of community networks.

Another noteworthy point raised in the publication is the potential use of bamboo as a sustainable resource for building infrastructure in community networks. An example was given of a successful project in India, where bamboo was used for construction purposes. This highlights the potential for bamboo to provide both an eco-friendly and cost-effective solution for building and expanding community networks.

Moreover, the publication stressed the significance of solar energy as a critical resource for network functioning. This is because without energy, there can be no networking, including digital networking. The publication showcased an example from Brazil, where a community set up online courses to promote knowledge and understanding of photovoltaic systems. This initiative aimed to improve energy efficiency and promote the use of solar energy within community networks.

Furthermore, the publication emphasized the importance of providing local servers as a means to promote ownership of data and infrastructure in community networks. Local servers not only make services more sustainable to organize but also reduce environmental impact. It was also noted that capacity building efforts are necessary to support the implementation and management of local servers within community networks.

Lastly, the publication highlighted that the future of community networks extends beyond simply providing connectivity and access. The importance of local services, such as agriculture, education, and content creation, was stressed. These services can cater to the specific needs of different communities, both rural and urban, and contribute to their overall development and well-being.

In conclusion, the publication provided insights into the challenges faced by community networks but also highlighted their potential benefits and future prospects. By addressing the challenges of managing technologies, exploring alternative resources like bamboo, harnessing solar energy, promoting ownership of data and infrastructure, and focusing on local services, community networks can make significant contributions to sustainable and inclusive development.

Raquel Gatto

This comprehensive summary explores the state and challenges of community networks in Brazil, emphasising the importance of an evidence-based approach to understanding these networks. The analysis highlights that long-term sustainability is a significant concern, with half of the community networks failing to survive beyond the first year of operation. Additionally, the regulatory environment poses challenges for community networks.

To address these issues, a policy brief was created by APCZ (Association for Progressive Communications) and Anatel (Brazil’s National Telecommunications Agency). This brief not only identifies gaps in telecommunications for community networks but also resulted in the development of a technical toolkit for establishing these networks. Notably, the policy brief includes several recommendations for Anatel and the Ministry of Communication to tackle the challenges faced by community networks.

Recognising the importance of collaboration, a Community Networks Working Group has been formed in conjunction with Anatel. This working group comprises community network leaders and organisations dedicated to fostering the development of these networks. Its aim is to provide a common goal and vision, as well as maintain continuous interaction with government actors.

In terms of Brazil’s global agenda, as the host of the G20 in 2024, the country demonstrates a strong focus on the digital pillar, specifically emphasising the importance of achieving universal and meaningful connectivity. This indicates Brazil’s commitment to promoting digital inclusion and ensuring that all individuals have access to the benefits of the digital world.

The analysis also underscores that meaningful access extends beyond mere internet connectivity. It stresses the significance of considering the entire connected environment and the skills necessary to navigate it effectively. This insight highlights the importance of addressing the digital divide comprehensively, focusing not only on infrastructure but also on empowering individuals with the relevant digital skills.

Furthermore, the analysis emphasises the need to recognise and acknowledge the voices and concerns of local communities, both in rural and urban areas. It dispels the notion that only remote and rural areas face connectivity challenges and underscores the importance of listening to and considering the unique needs of different communities.

The analysis also identifies concerns regarding the trade-offs in collaborative arrangements and the awareness of what is relinquished in the process. This insight serves as a reminder that careful consideration should be given to the potential consequences and compromises involved in collaborative initiatives.

Regarding community networks, caution is advised in the consolidation of services and connectivity within these networks. The analysis suggests that community networks should not be conflated with traditional internet service providers. This cautionary note aims to ensure clarity and prevent misunderstandings regarding the role and scope of community networks.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the need for an evidence-based approach to understand and address the challenges faced by community networks in Brazil. The efforts made by APCZ, Anatel, and the creation of the Community Networks Working Group signify positive steps towards overcoming these challenges. Brazil’s focus on universal and meaningful connectivity in its G20 agenda further underscores the country’s commitment to digital inclusion. However, it is crucial to consider the entire connected environment and the skills necessary for meaningful access. Local voices and concerns should be acknowledged, and careful consideration must be given to the trade-offs involved in collaborative arrangements. Moreover, community networks must be clearly distinguished from traditional internet service providers to avoid confusion.

Atsuko Okuda

Connecting the unconnected remains a pressing global issue, with approximately 2.6 billion people still lacking access to the internet. However, there have been notable advancements in internet connectivity. For instance, the Asia-Pacific region has made significant progress, with 4G mobile networks now covering more than 96% of the population. Furthermore, the introduction of approximately 265 commercial 5G networks worldwide signifies the ongoing efforts to improve connectivity and bridge the digital divide.

Addressing this challenge requires a holistic approach involving multiple stakeholders. By adopting a whole-of-society approach, meaningful partnerships can be forged, and silos can be overcome. This approach has shown promise, as evidenced by the successful implementation of the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) Smart Villages initiative. The initiative serves as a prime example of how a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach can contribute to enhancing connectivity.

Moreover, community networks, such as telecenters, play a crucial role in achieving both digital and environmental sustainability. A recent joint study by the ITU and the Internet Society (ISOC) highlighted the significance of telecenters and community networks in promoting sustainability. The study identified six dimensions of sustainability, including environmental sustainability, emphasizing the critical role that community networks play in expanding access to information and communication technology and contributing to broader sustainable development goals.

In conclusion, while connecting the unconnected remains a global challenge, progress is being made in improving internet connectivity. The widespread deployment of 4G and the launch of 5G networks demonstrate significant advancements in this regard. Additionally, a whole-of-society approach has proven effective, as seen in the successful implementation of ITU’s Smart Villages initiative. Furthermore, community networks, such as telecenters, are instrumental in achieving both digital and environmental sustainability. These insights highlight the importance of continued collaboration and innovative approaches to address the global challenge of connecting the unconnected.

Amreesh Phokeer

The Internet Society is actively involved in expanding community networks worldwide, with a particular focus on areas in Africa, Asia, and the Himalayas in Nepal. Their initiatives aim to support and enhance over 100 complementary connectivity solutions, while also providing training to over 10,000 individuals to maintain their own internet infrastructure. This commitment to expanding community networks reflects the Internet Society’s dedication to bridging the digital divide and promoting equal access to the internet for all.

A crucial aspect considered by the Internet Society is digital sovereignty. They recognise the importance of ensuring that countries have control over their own digital infrastructure and are not overly dependent on external entities. By supporting community networks, the Internet Society helps empower communities to establish their own internet connectivity, creating a sense of ownership and independence.

Furthermore, the Internet Society also places emphasis on environmental sustainability. In several African countries, issues concerning electricity access and affordability persist. To address these challenges, the Internet Society actively works towards reducing the costs of accessing equipment required for off-grid community networks. This approach promotes the use of renewable energy sources in these networks, aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals of affordable and clean energy and climate action.

In addition to addressing digital sovereignty and environmental sustainability, the Internet Society also advocates for the importance of maintaining local content and connectivity. They promote connectivity to local infrastructure, such as Internet exchange points, which facilitates the exchange of data within local communities. Additionally, community networks have started hosting their own services, such as local caches or video conferencing, particularly during the ongoing pandemic. These efforts not only enhance connectivity, but also contribute to responsible consumption and production, aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals of sustainable cities and communities.

Overall, the Internet Society’s involvement in expanding community networks demonstrates their dedication to promoting access to the internet and bridging the digital divide. By empowering communities, supporting digital sovereignty, striving for environmental sustainability, and maintaining local content and connectivity, the Internet Society plays a significant role in creating a more inclusive and connected digital world.

Pedro Vilchez

In the first argument, the speaker proposes a solution to reduce e-waste by making users responsible for the way Wi-Fi routers are used and allowing these devices to enter the circular economy. The argument is made in light of the fact that Wi-Fi routers are typically designed for a limited purpose and timeframe, leading to a significant amount of e-waste. The suggestion is to allow Wi-Fi routers to be modified and reused, similar to computers, which would prolong their lifespan and reduce the overall waste generated.

Moving on to the second argument, the speaker highlights the importance of community networks in Europe for maintaining telecommunications infrastructure and meeting societal needs. It is noted that both the public and private sectors are facing challenges in maintaining the telecommunications infrastructure efficiently. The speaker emphasizes that community networks can serve as a common resource model, enabling participation from both sectors. This approach can alleviate the burden on individual entities while ensuring the smooth operation of the infrastructure.

Furthermore, the speaker highlights that community networks go beyond just delivering internet access; they also foster mutual aid and knowledge sharing within communities. This aspect further strengthens the case for community networks as they not only provide essential services but also promote collaboration and community development.

To support the effectiveness of community networks, the example of GrifiNet is presented. It is mentioned that GrifiNet, an ISP spin-off, managed to earn 30 million Euros in 2022. This success serves as evidence of the efficacy of community networks and their potential to thrive in the telecommunications industry.

In conclusion, the first argument focuses on reducing e-waste by making users responsible for the proper use of Wi-Fi routers and integrating them into the circular economy. The second argument highlights the significance of community networks in Europe for maintaining telecommunications infrastructure and meeting societal needs. The evidence presented demonstrates the positive outcomes and potential benefits of embracing community networks. Overall, both arguments provide valuable insights into sustainable practices and innovative approaches in the technology and telecommunications sectors.

Luca Belli

Community networks play a crucial role in building digital sovereignty and environmental sustainability. These networks are driven by communities themselves and provide a model of digital sovereignty that is not defined by states, but driven by the communities themselves. They enable self-determination and self-governance, allowing communities to understand and regulate technology effectively. Notably, community networks have successfully been doing this for the past 20 years.

Moreover, community networks manage their connectivity infrastructure as a commons, which supports environmental sustainability. They understand and mitigate the potential negative environmental impacts of technology, ensuring that their actions align with environmental goals. This demonstrates their commitment to building sustainable communities.

Additionally, a multi-stakeholder model is suggested as an effective approach for building and implementing connectivity networks. This approach involves different stakeholders coming together to not only discuss but also actively create and execute plans. By involving various stakeholders, including community members, organisations, and government bodies, this model ensures a diverse range of perspectives and expertise. This can lead to more comprehensive and inclusive connectivity networks.

Community networks also create an entire ecosystem of content and services that are developed by and for the community. This empowers local communities and fosters a sense of ownership and pride. It allows communities to determine their own digital destiny and use technology for their specific needs, contributing to digital sovereignty.

While community networks are not a solution to all the world’s problems, they do bring significant benefits to underserved areas. They can provide access to culture, communication, and education, bridging the digital divide and empowering those who were previously left behind.

It is worth noting that successful community networks can perform like large telecommunication companies but with lower costs and community governance. Some community networks have been successful in creating self-sufficient intranets, allowing information and services to be shared within the community. This demonstrates the potential of community networks to rival traditional internet service providers and bring connectivity to underserved areas in a sustainable and cost-effective manner.

In conclusion, community networks are a powerful tool in building digital sovereignty and environmental sustainability. They empower communities, enabling self-determination and fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility. By adopting a multi-stakeholder model, community networks can create comprehensive and inclusive connectivity networks. They bring culture, communication, and education to underserved areas, bridging the digital divide. Although community networks have their limitations, their positive impact on communities and their ability to change lives is undeniable.

Luca Belli:
5, 4, 3, 2, 1. All right. So welcome to everyone to this annual meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity, DC3, that has been working on community connectivity issues for the past seven years. And so we are now at the seventh annual report. You can find here hard copies, or also on the web page of the DC3. They are already available in PDF for you to download. And the theme of this year that we have chosen, and some of you have helped us develop in this report, is community networks building digital sovereignty and environmental sustainability. And the idea behind this is that community networks offer us a very good example of an additional conception of digital sovereignty, and how also environmental sustainability can be achieved through a community-driven effort. So not necessarily only through policies and governance system that are defined by states, but also by through policies and governance models that are driven by the communities themselves. And that is an important conception in the debate of digital sovereignty. We have been speaking a lot about this over the week. The fact that digital sovereignty is not only about authoritarian regimes, controlling is not only about protectionism. It’s also very much also about understanding the technology to be able to develop it and regulate it in an effective way. And this is very much what community networks have been doing over the past 20 years in terms of self-determination, in terms of understanding how the technology works, developing it, and creating their own governance models, self-governance model to manage the connectivity infrastructure as a commons. And this is actually, it’s very good also to unleash forces that support environmental sustainability as when you understand the technology, understand also not only the good benefits of the technology, but also the potential negative impact in terms of negative externalities in environmental externalities. And you also try to understand how to develop it in a way that is more green, if you want. And also you can use, you can leverage connectivity at the local level to support initiatives that promote sustainability. And this, in a nutshell, and what we are going to speak today with a lot of very distinguished panelists. Let me first also thank my colleague, Senka Hadzic, who has been developing this work over the past years together, including the addition of the reports together with me. She has been the force behind the organization of the panel. And she will only speak lightly today because she is involved in intense karaoke yesterday evening. So let me also introduce our distinguished panelists, starting from Atsuko Okuda, that is joining us remotely. She is the director of the ITU Asia-Pacific Bureau. Then we have Raquel Gatto from CGI.br, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. We have Amresh Phukir from ISOC, that also is joining us online, together with Pedro Vilcets from Giffinet, also joining us online. And then back here in person, we have Carlos Baca, who is from SITSAC, and Nils Broek from Rhizomatica. Without further ado, I would like to ask Atsuko Okuda to provide some introductory remarks to understand also the kind of vision and interest that an organization like ITU may have in this kind of initiative that we are discussing and analyzing here. Atsuko, can you hear us?

Atsuko Okuda:
Yes. Excellent. And I hope that you can hear me too. Very well. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Good morning. I would like to start by thanking the organizer for inviting ITU to today’s session, Dynamic Coalition Session on Community Networks, Digital Sovereignty, and Sustainability. This topic is very close to my heart and is also a core area of ITU in Asia and the Pacific that we are undertaking in partnership with communities, UN agencies, governments, civil society, academia, and financial institutions. Let me first start with the connectivity part, where we have good and bad news. According to the latest estimate of ITU, which is released in September this year, 2.6 billion people still remain unconnected globally. It is good news as there is a decrease by 100 million from the previous estimates in 2022. It is bad news because the pace of connecting the unconnected may be decelerating. Under the COVID pandemic, almost 800 million people were estimated to have joined the cyberspace for a short time span between 2019 and 2021. In Asia and the Pacific, more than 96% of the population is covered by 4G mobile networks, according to the ITU statistics. Furthermore, the GSMA, Global Mobile Suppliers Association, reported that around 265 commercial 5G networks have been launched globally and 62 in Asia and the Pacific. But universal and meaningful connectivity where everyone can enjoy a safe, satisfying, enriching, productive, and affordable online experience remains a challenge in the region. Recognizing the important role that digitization plays in meeting the SDGs, ITU and the Office of the UN Secretary General’s Envoy on Technology have established a set of aspirational targets for 2030 across internet connectivity, achieving gender parity, addressing digital skills, broadband speed, and its affordability, which is measured as less than 2% of GNI per capita by 2025. These remain a high priority for governments across the globe, and various policy measures are being put in place to achieve the targets. In order for us to make significant and accelerated progress towards the targets and SDGs by 2030, we need a qualitative transformation. In the way we approach the digital divide and we connect the unconnected, we learned that a siloed approach may not work any longer, and strengthened partnership is a must to create synergies and impact. More importantly, we are gaining ground in building consensus on the need for a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to overcome the silos and build stronger partnerships. ITU Smart Villages and Smart Islands initiatives is an initiative designed on the whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach. It is being rolled out in 15 countries in Asia and the Pacific, and is aimed to deliver connectivity, digital skills, and priority digital services to rural and remote communities. It is being delivered in close collaboration with various line ministries, UN agencies, private sector, and civil society, and academia. And it has generated tremendous support, including that of G20 members during their meeting under Indonesia’s presidency in 2022. On the sustainability part, I’m very happy to see our ISOC colleague here in the session, as we recently conducted a study jointly. The reports are entitled, From Telecentres, Community Networks to Sustainable Smart Villages and Smart Islands, which is under finalization. The study identified six dimensions of sustainability. Of course, financial, sociocultural, organizational, operational policy, as well as environmental sustainability, based on the good practices and lessons learned from telecentres and community networks, and provided suggestions for smart villages and smart islands to look at while looking at the 10 case studies. I’m also very happy to see such a distinguished list of speakers today, who would be sharing their thoughts on this important aspect. And through our discussions and partnerships, I hope that we can accelerate our efforts to connect the unconnected and ensure that no one is left behind and offline.

Luca Belli:
Thank you. Back to you. Thank you very much for the very good overview of all the initiatives and also the ambition of ITU of leading this effort, also as a hub for various stakeholders to interact and promote a more sustainable connectivity. Now, let’s try to narrow down from the global to the local and see what is happening in Brazil. And Raquel has been leading several efforts about this over the past couple of years. So please, Raquel, the floor is yours.

Raquel Gatto:
Thank you very much, Luca. And I’m very happy to join you in this meeting. I see some familiar faces and new faces that I’m glad to interact with. I had a lot to cover, as usual, so I’m trying to keep it short and bring you at least three highlights that I think are important covering the past two, three years since 2020 when more of this movement on community networks landed in Brazil concretely. So first of all, I want to start talking about CGI’s study on the community networks. So this was a study undertaken as more of a statistical approach. So there are some qualitative interviews, but then the idea was really to bring this evidence-based approach to what are the community networks, how they are being organized, and what are the challenges, the state of art of the community networks in Brazil, and really understand those and bring into more of the numbers and indicators that could guide some of the policymaking. I’m not going through all of this study. I can point you, and certainly this has circulated already in the dynamic coalition, but I think it’s important to start with this as an angle where the study showed, for example, that some of the gaps that we have in terms of community networks that are not a surprise for some of you here, most of the community networks, they don’t survive the first year. And the other half, they don’t know if they’re going to survive for another year. So those are kind of the mapping results that we have in terms of the sustainability of the community networks itself and where we need to bring the efforts. It’s not only about the resources in terms of money. Of course, funding is one of them, but it’s also the resourcing in terms of the technical requirements, the registration requirements, and how the regulatory environment is also not helpful for the community networks to continue to survive and blossom. So that’s one of the key takeaways I want to bring in from this study. And then, of course, a major piece, and it was really what moved, let’s say, Brazil government into more the community networks friendly side, is EPCs conducted a study together with Anatel and the UK FDCO funding that had this massive work on a policy brief. It has a lot of recommendations on how, well, it also brought all this historical telecommunications overview in Brazil and how it evolved, and then what are the challenges for community networks itself, explaining what the community networks are and where are the gaps in the regulatory space. But it really landed into these recommendations for Anatel, for the communication ministry, for all those decision makers, what they need to do or that need to be done, right? Not a personal thing, but what needs to be done to help the community networks to grow, well, to be created, and then to grow and evolve. And so that’s among the recommendations. So the work that was done was the policy brief, but also a technical toolkit to show how community networks could be created and, of course, based on many of the materials that the members of the dynamic coalition have already circulated. So this would not be new in terms of content. But it’s new that it’s landed into the telco regulator website. So Anatel is promoting it also as part of their work. And this is an important shift in the telco regulator approach to community networks. And among the recommendations, so I’m not going through all of them. I think there are other valuable recommendations that we can discuss at some point in terms of universal funds and so on. But I want to focus on one that is about the creation of a local committee to interact more in depth with Anatel and the internet service providers group and the community network leaders. And this recommendation has been taken on by Anatel. And this group was created early this year. It’s called the Community Networks Working Group within Anatel. It had the mandate to August. It was postponed to end of this month to the end of October. And I just got the confirmation this morning that it’s going to have an event hosted by Anatel on November 22nd. So for the Brazilians in the room, please take in your calendars. And so the purpose of this group, so first let me go one way back. When the APCZ study was being done, there was this creation of a local group with experts. So not only the community network leaders itself, but also the organizations that were the intermediaries that were fostering the community networks development. And so this local group provided advice on the materials that were done and submitted. But also it has evolved from 10, 12 people and organizations that were involved to now 40 or 50 that are really, and it’s a really growing number. We are calling the local community networks group in Brazil that held weekly meetings. And this group has three seats in Anatel’s working group, so the more official working group. And the way I’m saying all of that, why is this valuable for everyone listening, is the importance of keeping first this connection with the local actors, to keep it lightweight at some point, but also to keep it ongoing. And to have kind of this major goal and common goal, to have everybody on board with the same outcome and vision. And this was really important to bring us more strongly and to show that somehow we are organized within and to interact within the government actors. And this is part of the change that is ongoing right now in Brazil. Of course, there are still a lot of challenges. I mean, even within and now talking about the working group, from Anatel working group, the interaction with the other actors and how still community networks can be misunderstood is there. This is a risk, right? It’s not a local ISPs for remote areas. So the understanding that community networks is community-based and it’s not about the service itself, I know, one minute, is still a challenge. But it’s being broken down into these smaller opportunities to showcase. So the event and the continuous network with the local decision makers is important. And lastly, because I only have one minute or 30 seconds, according to Luca here, I just want to say that also in Brazil we have an opportunity for 2024 with the G20. And I think I too was mentioning that. So Brazil is the host for G20. And it has already announced its agenda with a pretty heavy digital pillar, including universal and meaningful connectivity. So that’s going to be, again, an opportunity to be taking on and to strengthen all these opportunities and tackle not only the policy changes that need to be done, but also the funding and the resources that need to be put in place for community networks. So thank you very much.

Luca Belli:
Thank you, Raquel.

Senka Hadzic:
We’ll make sure to circulate these materials in the mailing list, like both the CGI study, as well as the I’m going to introduce our next speaker, who is going to give us an overview of what is going on in the community networks and also give us an overview of the APC policy brief. Now I’m introducing our next speaker, who is joining us online from Mauritius. He is an Internet measurement and data expert at the Internet Society. He will tell us about ISOC’s work on community networks and also about the role of community networks in the digital sovereignty.

Amreesh Phokeer:
Thank you, Sankar. Good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure for me to be here today in your panel. As Sankar mentioned, I work at the Internet Society. Not so much involved in community networks, but I can talk about the aspects, some of the aspects such as digital sovereignty or even how it impacts positively community networks, basically. First of all, I would like to remind the audience of the vision of the Internet Society, which is about how the Internet is for everyone and how we are working towards making this vision a reality. One of the projects that we are really involved in is expanding community networks around the world. We hope that by 2025, we will support more than 100 complementary connectivity solutions and also be able to train more than 10,000 people to maintain their own Internet infrastructure. The Internet Society itself has supported a couple of community networks around the world, from Africa to Asia. One recent intervention was a deployment of community networks in the Himalayas in Nepal. The issue of digital sovereignty and environmental sustainability is key. First of all, as you know, there are many places where access to electricity, especially in some African countries, is still an issue. Not only the issue is affordability, but even the stability of the network is a problem, as you can witness about how bad electricity supply is in South Africa for the moment. So having access to renewable energy sources is important, and at the same time, bringing down the costs of access to electricity and at the same time, bringing down the costs of access to equipment that would allow community networks to operate without being on the grid. Another point I wanted to touch upon is also access to content. As we know, even if you are a community network, your customers, your constituents, they still have the same needs as any other Internet user. So they would still want to watch the latest news or the latest YouTube video, and we work as hard as we can to connect community networks to the mainstream Internet. And at the Internet Society, we also try to promote the connectivity to local infrastructure, such as Internet exchange points. So usually what we found is that a community network will rely on an Internet provider, Internet service provider, and as much as possible, we tend to promote Internet service providers that are themselves connected to the local fabric, the local ecosystem. The more Internet service providers are connected to an Internet exchange point, it means that local traffic is going to stay local as much as possible. And as much as this local fabric is maturing, there is also a higher chance for content providers to host themselves locally because the customer base is also increasing. And this is what I would call collateral benefit to the community networks. Even if they are in remote places, they are still connected to the same local fabric, and eventually they would also benefit from having local connectivity. Local connectivity means that it is adding up to the equation of environmental sustainability because, of course, if you’re not using international bandwidth to access faraway content, it means that you’re using less energy to access content which is local. But I would also stress on the very singular characteristic of community networks. We talk about determination and things like that. On the opportunity for community networks to actually even host their own services. So we have seen during the pandemic where people couldn’t really have freedom of movement, how important it was for them to have affordable, even free, and unlimited access to technologies. And we have seen a lot of networks installing local caches or local services for video conferencing. So these are services that we should promote as much as possible on community networks. And obviously this would increase local use and, therefore, having less dependency on external services or paid services and allowing people to use services that are already local and close. And, therefore, they would also benefit from low latency services, higher quality, and so on. So I would really like to stress that sustainability is really broad. First of all, because sustainability can also mean giving the power to the people to create their own type of network. The network that really resembles the community itself and what they think is important. So having the ability to create their own content and upload content at very low cost and hopefully at high bandwidth and high quality is really important. So this increases, to some extent, sustainability of the community in terms of strengthening the community itself. And, of course, bringing content closer to the user and, as I mentioned, creates this environmental sustainability because it uses less energy elsewhere. So, yeah, these are my posts that I wanted to bring up today.

Senka Hadzic:
Thank you. Thank you, Amrush. That was a really great overview. Our next speaker is joining us from Spain. Pedro Vilches has been involved in GrifiNet, which is a, you can say, flagship community network in Catalonia. It has been operating for almost 20 years and has over 37,000 active nodes. And apart from providing connectivity, GrifiNet is also promoting circular economy and reduction of e-waste. And Pedro is going to tell us more about it in his presentation. Welcome, Pedro. Pedro, can you hear us? Hi. Yeah. We can hear you now. Yeah. Okay. So I want to raise two topics for this session.

Pedro Vilchez:
One is a proposal on reducing e-waste, and the other one is remarking why community networks are relevant in Europe. So, well, here is my relevant volunteer activity. So 10 years, more than 10 years of experience in GrifiNet through EXO, that is a non-profit operator from Barcelona with 100 members. But I’m also holding a position in a governing council, holding a position in a governing council of a telecom cooperative called Sunconexio, which is also part of GrifiNet, and it’s giving service to 9,000 members and 20,000 contracts. I also professionally work in that research group, this one, and I’m involved in tech projects with strong involvement of small-scale communities. The proposal on reducing e-waste is very simple. So the root problem is that manufacturers are becoming responsible on how Wi-Fi routers are used. I put notes at the end. This is called an EU radio directive from Free Software Foundation Europe. So the e-waste problem specifically is that Wi-Fi routers are generally designed for a very limited purpose and short timeframe. They cannot be changed or modified, and that eventually produces e-waste. And the proposed solution is do the same as with computers. Make its users be responsible on what they do. Allow these devices to feed and enter the circular economy and be part of, for example, the area use ecosystem we have here nearby Barcelona. Why are community networks relevant in Europe? First, let’s present the problem, problem maintaining telecommunications infrastructure. So it started with the public sector, and at some point, they stopped maintaining it, maybe because it was a business and not just an expense. With the 90s liberalization, the private sector captured it, but it’s struggling maintaining it. Recent discussion in Europe about big telco, they say too many operators is unsustainable, and that the solution is the United States model, hence be less actors in the market. But, for example, from the New York Mesh community network, they complain, but in New York City, far too many people don’t have internet access. Solution, invest on community networks. Community networks really solve society needs. Being a pool resource, common pool resource model, means that public and private sectors can still participate, as the other colleagues were saying. Financial institutions, academia, government, it’s a non-excludable model. Even if the model fails, it could behave as an accelerator, delivering a more competitive private sector. And here we have a proven experience in Giffin. An ISP did a spin-off called Sunbeta, and from nothing, they got 30 million euro on annual turnover in 2022. So, but community networks is not only about delivering internet access. They can also help in mutual aid, international cooperation, sharing knowledges. Here from the perspective, I would recommend apc.org, battlemesh.org. We also have an xrcb.cat project that is a community radio. That also means bridging with the arts and with the neighbors and their concerns. Community radio could be understood as a podcast platform. We also have a project called Plataformas, and these could be understood as a pilot that explores server-side resources, usage by cooperatives from solidarity economy. Or other projects like shoik.coop, which is an open network for the internet of things on top of Giffinet. Given on the comments you did in the previous presentations, yeah, we are also serving real-time traffic, and that reduces international bandwidth for services, such as GT and BigBlueButton, instead of using Zoom, which makes also more sobering on what we use. So here are the sources I use it, and thank you. Fantastic.

Luca Belli:
Thank you very much, Pedro, also for being so sharp in the time management. I think there are a couple of points that emerge that we can connect between what Pedro and Amrish were saying, which resonates a lot with what we have been doing over the past years in terms of community networks, on the one hand, as multi-stakeholder partnerships. So we really speak a lot about multi-stakeholder model during the IGF, but the multi-stakeholder model is not only about having different stakeholders discussing things, but it’s also about having different stakeholder building things, implementing things, defining a governance model that allows them to operate even connectivity networks, but also then implementing them and creating a whole digital ecosystem out of it. And that is the other point that is something, again, that we have been stressing a lot over the past year, that to me is the core of what some years ago I was calling network self-determination, which is really the basis of the digital sovereignty conception of the community networks, the fact that you create not only connectivity, you create an entire ecosystem of content, of services that are created by the community for the community. So the community understands the technology, develops the technology, and they regulate the technology. It’s really the essence of digital sovereignty, not, again, in terms of authoritarian control, but in terms of empowerment and self-determination of the local community. We have been speaking and discussing and writing a lot about this with Carlos Vaca since several years. So Carlos from Chitsack, you have been doing amazing work, not only starting community networks, but also building them with your friends. So please, the floor is yours. Hi, everyone.

Carlos Baca:
Thank you for having me and thank you for being here in the last day of the IGF. So I know this is a big effort, so I’m very happy to have the possibility to share with you. And I want to address one question, and it’s how we can relate or if there is a relation between capacity building and environmental sustainability. And we will share with you some of the lessons that we learned in the process of developing the National Schools of Community Networks. So the National Schools of Community Networks are processes that have been in place since three years ago. We started in the beginning of the pandemic, we started this project, and it’s part of the LogNet initiative that is led by Rizomatica and APC, and is with the support of FCDO from the Digital Access Program from the UK. And these national schools have been taking place in five countries, in South Africa, in Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, and Kenya. And in each of these countries, we work with big allies, big organizations that implement the process of these national schools. And each of them are very different. There are no single curriculum. They are very different between each other. And they share only one thing, that it is the methodological way in which we develop these national schools. We depart from this participatory action research methodology, so we begin with the analysis of the context. We conform in each of the countries an advisory committee made by specialists and also from people from the communities and organizations, et cetera. And they start to develop this design and then implement the school. And in each of the countries also, we have seven micro-organizations, seven community-based organizations who took part of the training. And they were involved since the beginning in the design, but also in the implementation of the school, the workshops. They take the workshops. And then they have the opportunity to develop some small projects to benefit or to strengthen the process in the communities. So this is the last part. And in this part is when we realized a lot of the knowledge on how to build a community network and what are the needs that they faced and how to address it. So one of the problems, and I’m sure you all know, that we have this problem of e-waste. And this is from Mexico. This is not from the countries of the national schools. But it is a rupture of the municipality presidency in one of the indigenous communities in Mexico. And only one of these antennas or this infrastructure work. So you know this is a very, very big problem. And it’s related not only to the public policy that is implemented, but also the lack of capacities in the communities to maintain the equipment. So one of the first lessons we have in this process is that if we, through capacity-building processes, we strengthen or we develop the critical vision about the technologies, about the choosing of technologies, we have different ways to get results that are related with the care of the environment and the territory. I’m sure Nils will talk more about it. But for example, we developed in Indonesia, they started to develop these bamboo towers, so are more sustainable and also that are beautiful. Because they made their own houses with this architecture and they took the same artisanal work to develop the towers. But also in the school, some other organizations developed. use artificial intelligence to develop projects. Two projects are beautiful. One of it is, you know, the fishermen to try to know where are the fish bank and to travel less, you know, to go where the fish are, but also to know what banks have more fish and have less. And so they made a strategy, a sustainable strategy of this fishing. And the other one is the shrimp farms that are led by the women in the communities. And now they have these tools in their cell phones who can let them know the temperature, all the things that they need to know to maintain these farms working. So they have the time to start another project, and they are joining and start different projects that are not related, actually, with the need to be all day taking care of the farms. So it is very interesting and it is important. And in other countries, like in Brazil and Nigeria, they use a lot of solar energy for the network. As I said, each of the schools was very different. The other, the second point is that peer-to-peer learning and the technical know-how also help with this, no? Because if the people know how to maintain the equipment, how to look for common failures, and no, it implies less travel for the people who live in the city, who need to go to, no, the technical people who go to repair the things, there are also better handling of the equipment and less waste. And this process was very, very evident in which the National School of Community Networks was led by a community network, no? Not in all cases, the organization had a community network, now almost all have it. So in Kenya and South Africa, they have this experience, so the technical knowledge was very, very, I don’t know, but good transmission to everyone. And the third one is the way in which in these training programs, in this process, the people wave their learning communities, no? How to interact with each other, how to be an encounter point, so they start doing different projects. And one of the things that we learned is the importance of the people to travel to other places. For example, in South Africa, almost all the people who participate in the national school never get out from its communities. So when they start seeing other territories, see how other people live, how the things are doing in other ways, they start to rethink also their own territory and the ways they need to take care of it. And of course, as someone says in this session, the local content and the production is very important in this process, too. So it is a part of this territory and care of the things. And just to finalize with inviting you to visit the CN Learning Repository. You will find a lot of materials soon, I think today you will find also this.

Luca Belli:
And so thank you very much. Thank you very much, Carlos, and also for appointing the Community Network Repository, which is an incredible source of material for anyone wishing, willing to learn more or to build even community networks. Speaking about building community networks, no one better than Nils can provide us a little bit more of insight on the challenges and opportunities of developing them. Thank you, Luca. And hi, everyone.

Nils Brock:
My name is Nils Brock from Raisonmatica. And stepping in today for our colleague Shabani Belur from ISEA and APC due to connectivity issues, she cannot participate, unfortunately. So we see there’s still need to build a better and resilient internet. So the work that we proposed for this publication here was titled, Can Environmental Practices Foster Community Network Sustainability? So we would say yes, and I would like to tell you a bit what was our approach to this, which is kind of a complementary methodology to the work that Carlos Baca has just presented. So community networks, as we learned also before, they have challenges in terms of managing all the technologies that are involved and to transmit a signal or to put up a local network besides the regulatory challenges that we heard so far. And so there is a need for complementary internet solutions as we also heard earlier. So how could a community network do this and also in an efficient way and in a collaborative way? And the LogNet project, the local community network initiative that was already mentioned by Raisonmatica and APC, was working for several years on innovation and technology basically also through peer contacts but also on sub-granting. And in effect, in side effect, another good one of sub-granting is that each grantee works often very much on his or her own and sometimes there is a lack of collaboration but there are shared challenges for the networks and we have tried to engage with the community network ecosystem and the community in a different way, putting up a space that we call communities of practice. So it’s an approach where we brought in not only community networks but also other practitioners, engineers, experts on certain topics, also educators that were able to explain and build capacity for some issues. And so we worked along a concept of emerging technologies, so to say, what does a community network need to really work but also to be sustainable for itself in economical terms but also for the planet. So I will just pick out two examples and happy to dive a bit deeper in later discussions. So there was the question of bamboo and so if we talk about what does bamboo have to do with a tech network, so where does this come in, but there is always a need for infrastructure, so to say, to build up mass structures, they need concrete, they need steel and it’s not resources that are locally available. So bamboo is a plant that is in many countries available as a resource that can be grown or that is already there and so the question is how to treat it, how to select this bamboo. And so we were looking to build a community of practitioners there from India who had already done some work on this. They provided the knowledge of how to plant bamboo if someone really wants to put up a bamboo garden and in a couple of years have its own grown resources there. And there were other examples like the community around the science of towers, so how can we imagine towers that are also easy to replicate and one nice example was the tower that we saw on the image earlier from Indonesia, then a community network from Uganda, Bosco, they said we want to try to replicate this and then online they were tutored and they put up the tower so it’s possible and this is kind of traveling solutions that were created and we are still exploring more about how far can this go and where to take the bamboo approach. Solar energy is another critical resource, so without energy there is no networking, no digital networking and again here there was a capacity gap and a knowledge gap we would say and together with experts but also persons as physicians that are involved in community networks in Brazil setting up online courses to see okay how can we translate photovoltaic systems and the building blocks that are there on the market, how can we make them available that people can use them safely so that the equipment will be there for a good while, how can they calculate what they need and this was something ongoing. Also there are some kind of new technologies, some building blocks emerging like an open maximum power point tracker, so making the energy use more efficient, this is open hardware and open software so very much aligned also with the needs of communities and a last point maybe to just to put out local services is something that really stroke a chord also with the community networks to work on this because there are different solutions when it comes to e-learning and also content production and to have those as it was explained before by Giphynet, to have those available on local servers is a great contribution because then there’s really an ownership on the data, on the infrastructure, of course it is a capacity building needed for this but having those local servers again they make those services if it’s nicely done more sustainable in terms to organize them for the community but also the environmental impact can be reduced. So those are just some

Luca Belli:
examples and thank you very much and looking forward for the discussion. All right, so we have finished our speakers and we now have an open mic for everyone willing to provide comments, ask questions or share any kind of thoughts, so if you want to discuss any, to raise any issue or if you want to ask any questions I invite you to use this mic in the middle, we don’t have a roaming mic but there is, you can line there and ask your question, please go ahead.

Audience:
I’m from Rio de Janeiro, Favela da Maré in Brazil. It’s very important to hear about these experiences around the world about community networks, internet access, but a question I wanted to ask is about, I live in a favela that is dominated by the militia, by the traffic, where in the pandemic internet was very important to us, but today we can no longer have access to the internet or telephone lines because the operators, the antennas were removed and today the internet and telephony networks are dominated by the traffic and the militia, and then the article… If you and I can translate, but yes, but… She was talking about how is militia and traffic dominated territory, how important was the internet in the pandemic times, but right now they don’t have access to telephone or internet because the telecoms won’t enter the territory because it is militia dominated. Brazil, Rio de Janeiro. I am a community communicator and I live in this territory. Article 19 in Brazil gave us the alternative to make antennas, alternatives to make a community network, but analyzing the risks, we evaluated that it was better not to do it. And it means that we, community communicators, we can’t make territorial community communication and the favela itself, which has 140,000 inhabitants, today has no access to telephony or internet. And then I think, what alternatives would we have to look for solutions within a favela so that we had access to telephony and internet in a favela that is so important and so large also in Rio de Janeiro. She’s talking about how Article 19 in Brazil offered them to create a community network, but they assessed the risks and they figured they shouldn’t do it because it was a life-threatening risk because of the militia and the traffic. And so now she’s asking, what could be done, how could we think about this kind of specific problem in this context. Let’s take the other question that we have here and then we can start having a round of answers in the limit of what’s possible from this group. Hello, my name is José Arthur, I’m part of the youth delegation from Brazil, and I’m overseeing community networks in indigenous communities in the Amazon region. I would like to do a small comment on this subject. When we talk about community networks, it is necessary not only to talk about the implementation part and other issues, but also about what actions are being taken to ensure that digital inclusion is actually applied to avoid the digital terrorism, and how to teach the community about what opportunities they can have through the connective obtainment, through these community networks, that is, how they can use it to change their realities. And this is a point that I think is always very important to talk about when the subject is being discussed, because it helps ensure the community survival. I think we… Oh yeah, if you want, we can have another one and then we reply. Yeah, one question you already know. Two things. One is, I’ve been talking to people who have certain ideas of digital sovereignty. One of my friends who is a researcher who wants to work with us in some European countries said like, but you know, we have to be digitally sovereign, so we can’t cooperate very closely. Does it ring a bell for you? So, do you understand?

Luca Belli:
Okay.

Audience:
So when you collaborate with somebody on technology, there is this flag going on, like we have to be digitally sovereign, so therefore we cannot collaborate very closely. Okay. So this is one idea of digital sovereignty. I wanted to bring this to focus because I was very confused. Okay. Second one is, there’s a lot of communities, great work, amazing sessions, but I don’t know a representation of who they are. You cannot have community as rolled in and people talking about, we did Zoom, we connected YouTube, right? We can always, who are they? What are they doing with the community networks, right? We want to understand how they are participants, they are a community in the network for the services. Okay. And I can go on about that, but again, look at web. You can bring all the internet that you want, but without the web in the community, you’re just bringing, connecting Zoom, YouTube, something else, and still talking about digital sovereignty. We have to think about this. Okay. I think we might have several reactions here. Who wants to go first? Thank you, because these questions are, I think, essential, no? We can’t talk about all the things that we learn and we know, no? Because there are very long processes. And just to say that, actually, that’s why capacity building, I think,

Carlos Baca:
is key in this process, no? Because if we think digital sovereignty or digital autonomy or technological autonomy as a black or white thing, we are in the bad way, I think. And also, we think that it is like a place in which we will stay and we will have all the autonomy in our lives, and we will be very happy because all of us have autonomy. It’s also a bad way, I think, to understand it. But if we understand this like a process in which the communities and us, actually, have enough information to take good decisions, the decisions that we think are better for us, we are in the good way. So we want to think, at least in Latin America, the technological autonomy as a process of taking decisions by us, but with all the information that we need to know. So if a community understands that, and they still need to use Zoom because it’s better the signal. I don’t know. Whatever they want. But they understand what they are doing. Or Facebook or whatever, no? But they understand what they are doing, no? And the risk they have, it is better. Because if not, you have this, no? It’s connected or disconnected. And I think this is not the way. In one of the conferences yesterday, someone says that we need to escape from the idea that it is the better stage of the connectivity or no connectivity. And there is a lot of gray scale, I think, in it. And the important thing is that the communities have the understanding of what is happening, no? And what it implies to use one of different technologies. And then how they can have the environment to develop the projects they want to develop, no? So I think this is the key. And the other thing about the violence is very difficult, no? On the one hand, we have in Africa, in South Africa and Kenya, we have community networks that are in urban areas, no? Very good community networks, like Tandanet, like Binet, like Ocean View in Cape Town. And on the other hand, in our experience in Mexico, we have the narcos. I know that you all have seen series of narcos. And they are most of it, really, no? This is a reality in Mexico. And we work in the north of Mexico. And we need to negotiate a lot with them. Actually, they have the better communication, I saw, in the rural areas. But they are part of the environment. difficult. It doesn’t mean that we need to stay in the same table with them, but we know that they are behind all the discussion in the communities, and we need to know that, and it’s very difficult. It’s very difficult. They have like a big truck with a lot of internet, satellite internet and satellite phones, so they have a lot of technology. No, no, no. This is not community. This is the Narcos network. Yes. How was the negotiation? Just, I got curious, how would you approach them? I don’t know. For example, in one of the meetings we had, there is two minds that are like, and then they are very quiet, and they go out, and some people say that they are looking. What are you mean? Because they want also internet for their homes, because the communication for the daily life is for community. That’s their interest. That’s their personal interest. Yes, they want their children to be connected, the school too. So they actually, in some places, they help to develop infrastructure. It’s a very complex thing, and so we know that in the communities, we don’t need to stay with them and to talk with them, but they are part of the conversation, of the decision making. Because the starting point of the negotiation is their personal interest. Yes, to know that they are there, and this is a reality. Thank you.

Raquel Gatto:
And that’s very good. And let me just, a smaller Portuguese version. Gisela, it’s a pleasure to meet you. Welcome, and thank you for the question. I’ll speak in Portuguese with you later. Just saying, I’m going to talk to her in Portuguese later. But anyway, thank you very much for the questions. I can’t address every single point, but I think there is a common line here, which is also to bring that concept of meaningful access. We tackle this a lot, and the policy network on meaningful access. So it’s not only about bringing the connection, but it’s about the whole environment that is connected, that someone is connected to, and the skills that are involved in it, the equipment, but also, let’s say, the local environment. And I think what, first, Gisela and José Arthur brought both in the sense of, well, one into the urban environment, that’s a very non-rural environment. Let’s change the wording if that’s difficult. In a non-rural environment, that, well, first, it’s a myth that only remote and rural areas have problems. So it’s important to bring that, that we have those islands even in the cities. And then that also raises, on the indigenous community part and the slums part, how important it is to have this local voice heard, because there are different challenges, and it’s okay. But first, you need to have a space where you can openly share that, and at least look for someone that is having the same problem, that has addressed this problem, and try to get some inputs on how you can bring to solutions. But also, it is important if you think about how to scale that, because if there are many that are facing the same problem, how we’re going to find a long-standing solution and a more sustainable solution in the future. So that’s my first point, connecting all these dots and all these experiences and having the places where this can be done, it’s the first step. And then, I’m not going into the trade-offs and the digital sovereignty concept in full, but I think it’s a good alert that Carlos said, in terms of, I think the major concern is the trade-offs you have in this kind of collaborative arrangements, and the real awareness of what you are giving up when you buy into the solution. So there is no right or wrong, it’s just a matter of how well this is understood, and how this is advertised in terms of being community network driven or not. So I would put it in that sense.

Luca Belli:
I just wanted to add a point that we also have to understand that what we are speaking about, and which are the problems that we want to face, and what are the solutions to those problems. So the community networks are not a silver bullet to solve all the problems that we have in the world. So the fact that there is, let me speak, the fact that there is criminality in a given area is not something that sadly can be solved with community networks. It’s not the task of the community networks to deal with warlords or drug lords. So the community network can help. Actually, they are a very good complementary solution to solve the problem, because they bring culture to people, they bring communication to people. There is, I mean, you as a Brazilian communicator, I’m sure you know very well Paulo Freire, and he used to say that education doesn’t change the world. Education changes the people, and then changes the world. And I think you have to have this similar approach to connectivity. Connectivity does not change the world. Connectivity can change the people, and then the people will change the world. So if you think that the community network is the silver bullet that solves all the problems, I’m sorry, but you will be disappointed. But it is a very good, it’s something, it’s an alternative solution to bridge the gap that are evident in the classic traditional connectivity solutions that are state and markets. Because if all the, be them rural or areas that are not connected, or peripheral area, or slam in cities that are not connected, they are so-called market failure. It’s technical, they are called market failure areas, because the market fails to connect them, because there is no interest, economic interest in connecting them, and so you don’t have return on investment. Some of them may also be state failure areas, because the state, for various reasons, has abandoned those areas. And, but, we all know that no area is without, no community is without rules. So when the state is not ruling, someone else is ruling. And that is the problem that I think the state should solve, not really the community networks. But the community networks are a good complementary solution to expand connectivity. Osama, you wanted to say something. So actually this is not a question, but a point of observation, and also the experience, and most of the, many of the players are sitting there, and some players are sitting here. The observation is community network is so far practiced as an alternative way of providing, or building connectivity, which may be frugal, which may be commune oriented, and so on and so

Audience:
forth. The second point is that as soon as GSM comes, or the internet itself reach you, in terms of access, community network gets challenged, and they either close down, or they go haywire, or all the users get on to that network, right? Not that the previous network was not connected to the internet, but in terms of viability of existence. The third is that the best community network practice may have become an ISP, in the local area, like Goifi, and maybe Rizomatica, and there may be some examples that I may not know. The discussion that I want to do is that, what is the future of community network in itself? And coming forward, because first 15 years, internet was look up to. Now, we are fear of internet. We are fearful of internet, because there are more bads coming to you, or you have to go through those bads to get the good out of it. And therefore, can community network become an alternative commune in itself? In other words, intranet. Can it become an intranet, and I connect to the internet only when we want, or something like that, right? Is there some practice like that, or is there something, I mean, since you document a lot, I mean, this is something very important that we need to discuss, is that can community networks not in technological term, not as an alternative of ISP, not an alternative for access, but to create your own commune, like your own gated community, whatever, I mean, you can safeguard yourself, you can run on your own, even though you have Airtel, or you have NTT Docomo, or whatever, I don’t want it, you know, I just plug in and then plug off, you know, if somebody wants, because of this, and this is something that we need to discuss, because now only one third of the world is yet to be connected, so are we looking at community network as an alternative to connect those who are one third of the world, or safeguard those who are already connected, is the question. Yeah, thanks for the question, Osama, so maybe I can start, I think you are pointing out in a good direction, so I think it’s beyond connectivity,

Nils Brock:
and it’s beyond access, so when we talk about the future of community networks, and so the inter-internet approach, to have like local services, this is really something, or where there can be a difference, and to start at the other end, so what does meaningful connectivity mean at the community level, and also during the IGF, we have seen like different categories and things, but what is missing is also the question, how would the community respond to this question, what brings meaning to the connectivity from their end, that can be very, very different if you look at the rural or urban community, and then to another one, there’s so many different factors, and so only if we take into account this, I think then it’s possible to rethink, and from recent work that we have done, there is a study that we are working on also on local services, and understanding what are the importance, what are services of importance for communities, and again, that can be different, it can be agricultural services, can be educational ones, content creation, but there are things there, and that can be often done in a different way, in a complementary way, we could say, in an alternative way, whatever is the framing, but I think this is important, because you’re right, if it’s only about connectivity, and there is a provider who has a business model that comes at a community point, so this collective effort could be undone. I can take it very quickly, just to react to that, first, if we are going to put this question of the community networks becoming an internet service provider or not, we are in a good place, that’s a good problem, and it means that the community networks has grown and evolved to the place that it is, perhaps an ISP, but anyway,

Raquel Gatto:
I’m not going to the nitty-gritty of, you know, it should be one or not, but because I think there are some other regulatory discussions that needs to, that might change in some places where we are looking for more of this social license for community networks as an alternative provider, and do not confuse with the traditional internet service provider, but anyway, and as you can see, while I’m a lawyer, nobody’s perfect, and so I take more for the, you know, regulatory and process environment. I would just put the cautions on the examples that you were mentioning, like, oh, and then it becomes the internet service provider, and perhaps it’s also the content providers, and, you know, this consolidation of all the services and connectivity in the community networks, because then you might be becoming, I mean, there is no, again, right or wrong if this is really the community will, and it’s community-driven. The problem is when this package has community, or something for the community, but it’s really a top-down, and something that is not, you know, their will, and it’s not their self-determination, so that’s just the risk for this consolidation that you’ve been outlining. Thank you. I just want to add an element to this

Luca Belli:
with regard to the digital sovereignty debate, which is actually a twofold dimension. On the one hand, if, as Raquel was mentioning, if the community network is so successful that it becomes a very well-performing ISP with very low prices, well, that is, I think, the community network has succeeded, because it became exactly, starting from scratch, it became exactly like the big telcos, but without being a big telco, while being community-driven, so that is an enormous success of the local community, as long as it is maintained by the local community, and the governance model is self-driven by the local community. On the other hand, if there are some, we have also documented over the past years, there are community networks where they are, as Osama was mentioning, basically intranet, and local communities, and that is another element of their sovereignty. If their choice is to create a local network to share information, to even have their own platforms to communicate, or to trade services, or to have information on medical treatments, and they only connect sometimes to the internet to do whatever they want, again, that is the reason why we may argue it’s an expression of digital sovereignty, because it is local communities, people willingly understanding what technology means, building it, and using it for what they want, and if they choose not to communicate with you, I’m sorry for you, but it’s their choice, and so, Carlos, do you have a question also, a comment? No, okay, so it’s the, so I’m keeping on, last five minutes, so you have a question or a comment, okay, I saw. No, so to conclude, is simply, I wanted to stress that we really have to consider the self-determination element of it, which is being the master of your own digital destiny, being the one that understands what you are dealing with, and crafts a plan to what you, to succeed in your aspiration, and if then your aspiration is becoming, having a local ISP that works like Telefonica in terms of quality, but has half the prices, and you redistribute the benefits in the local economic environment, well, I would say that you have been very successful, and we can disagree, but I think that is not a failure, on the contrary, it could be seen as a success. Please, Carlos. Thank you, Luca. Carlos Rey Moreno, Association for Progressive Communications. First of all, thank you very much,

Audience:
Senka, thank you very much, Luca, I mean, we are talking about the WSIS plus 20 review, the IGF, what is the impact of the IGF, and certainly the IOMEC coalition on community connectivity, I think, has shown over the years, over the outputs, over the discussions, how much value there is in holding these type of conversations. Second, I want to speak on behalf, I’m not them, of course, of Okoro, who was supposed to be speaking for connectivity reasons, he’s not with us, he’s an APC member from Nigeria, the Media Awareness and Justice Initiative, we’re actually starting on some of the elements that Osama was talking about, right, so they are working, collaborating with another APC member, the Open Culture Foundation, with the SOOD project, on doing, bringing meaning to their community around a spill of oil in the Port Harcourt area, where their communities are based, as well as monitoring air pollution with devices and bringing, you know, value-added services to the internet that they had, right? The thing is that by doing that project, they also realized that the connectivity that they were having from the mobile operators was not enough, so they went and set up, in the last year actually, it wasn’t, you know, one of the pioneers on this movement, they started less than 10 months ago, starting a community network, two community networks, actually, in the areas where they work, so this type of citizen science can be done in, you know, and have the internet quality that it requires to do what they require, because also the affordability issues that they face in Nigeria, right? So it started the other way around, it started from bringing meaning and value-added services and using the digital platforms and solutions for solving the issues that they were having and touching upon what the problems that they are facing around, you know, air quality and pollution of oil, and, you know, it was, you know, their challenge, and using those type of tools to actually bring the community together and solve as well their connectivity issues. Anyway, I really hope Okoro was here and could speak on behalf of the project that they are doing, that is really, really amazing. Thank you. Okay, so we have also the announcement that there will be a nice, an excellent talk this afternoon. I’m sorry, I will have to fly right after this lunch, but I’m sure that I will watch

Luca Belli:
it on streaming. Thank you very much to everyone for your excellent food for thought. I think all the participants here have many more ideas now to reflect on community networks and digital sovereignty and environmental sustainability, and if you want to have even more ideas, do not forget to have your complimentary copies of the report of this year that are here for free, so if you want, please have as many as you want. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.