Nri Collaborative Session Community Based Connectivity to Achieve Digitally Inclusive Societies

Summary

This discussion focused on sustainable models for community-based connectivity and strategies to bridge the digital divide, particularly in rural and underserved areas. The session was hosted by Peace Oliver Amuge from the Association for Progressive Communications and featured panelists from various regions discussing policy frameworks, funding mechanisms, and collaborative approaches to expand internet access.

Shafiq Shaya from RIPE NCC emphasized that connectivity is a fundamental right rather than a luxury, sharing a success story from Lebanon where a mobile bus initiative helped a young woman become an entrepreneur by providing digital access and literacy. He stressed the importance of all stakeholders becoming active partners rather than passive supporters in government initiatives. Lillian Chamorro from Colombia highlighted the need for diverse connectivity models that complement traditional operators, advocating for reduced regulatory requirements and access to universal access funds for community networks.

Julius Zube presented Lithuania’s successful “Window to the Future” initiative, demonstrating how collaboration between telecommunications companies, banks, and government created Europe’s largest public internet network in libraries. Henry Wang discussed emerging technologies like blockchain protocols and mesh networks that could revolutionize community connectivity through decentralized physical infrastructure networks (D-PIN). Claude Dorion addressed financing challenges, proposing blended funding strategies that combine grants, loans, and social economy principles to support community initiatives.

Aicha Jerid emphasized that community networks involve empowerment beyond mere connectivity, advocating for inclusive digital education policies and reduced dependency on large ISPs. Participants from the audience and online contributors shared experiences from Bangladesh, Bolivia, and Africa, highlighting common challenges including technical expertise gaps, device affordability, and the need for sustainable funding models. The discussion concluded with recognition that building community networks requires ongoing processes involving multiple stakeholders, diverse funding approaches, and policies aligned with local community needs and ownership models.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Community-driven connectivity as a fundamental right**: The discussion emphasized that internet access should be viewed as a human right rather than a luxury, with community networks serving as bottom-up solutions to bridge the digital divide in rural, indigenous, and underserved areas.

– **Multi-stakeholder partnerships and active collaboration**: Speakers stressed the importance of moving beyond traditional support roles to become active partners, with governments, civil society, private sector, and technical communities working together rather than operating in silos.

– **Policy and regulatory framework adaptations**: The need for flexible regulations that recognize the diversity of community network models, including reduced fees, simplified reporting requirements, access to universal funds, and alternative economic models that differ from traditional commercial approaches.

– **Sustainable financing mechanisms and mixed funding models**: Discussion of innovative financing approaches including social economy principles, blended financing strategies, and examples like Lithuania’s public-private partnerships that leverage multiple stakeholder resources for long-term sustainability.

– **Capacity building and digital literacy integration**: Recognition that community networks encompass more than just connectivity infrastructure, requiring comprehensive digital skills training, local governance development, and empowerment of communities to manage their own networks.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore sustainable models for community-based connectivity, focusing on how different stakeholders can collaborate to close the digital divide through locally-driven network solutions. The session sought to identify challenges, share successful experiences, and discuss policy frameworks that support community networks as alternatives to traditional commercial internet service provision.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and solution-oriented tone throughout. Speakers were enthusiastic about sharing practical experiences and success stories from their respective regions (Lebanon, Colombia, Lithuania, Singapore, North Africa, Bolivia). The tone was constructive and forward-looking, with participants building on each other’s ideas rather than presenting conflicting viewpoints. There was a sense of urgency about addressing connectivity gaps, but also optimism about community-driven solutions and emerging technologies like decentralized networks and satellite connectivity.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Peace Oliver Amuge** – Host/Moderator, works for the Association for Progressive Communications

– **Shafiq Shaya** – Regional manager for public policy and government efforts for RIPE NCC, member at the IGF Lebanon, ex-chair of the IGF MAG in Lebanon

– **Lillian Chamorro** – Part of Colnodo team (NGO based in Colombia), part of the IGF from Colombia, secretariat of the Latin American and Caribbean IGF

– **Julius Zube** – Representative of NRD companies (private sector from Lithuania), member of the Lithuanian government

– **Henry Wang** – From Singapore IGF, co-founder for the World Web 3 Alliance

– **Claude Dorion** – Economist, general manager of MCA Conseil (non-profit consultancy specialized in financial and development strategy for collective projects)

– **Aicha Jerid** – Director of community network, representing the North African part of the continent

– **Roberto Zambana** – Working in Bolivia NRI, also working with Internet Society Foundation

– **Judith Hellerstein** – Online moderator

– **Kweku Entry** – From the African Community Network Program

– **Audience** – Member of the Internet Governance Forum (from Bangladesh)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Zaina** – From Lebanon (online participant who submitted a question)

# Discussion Report: Sustainable Models for Community-Based Connectivity

## Introduction and Session Context

This NRI’s collaborative session, hosted by Peace Oliver Amuge from the Association for Progressive Communications, brought together diverse stakeholders to examine sustainable models for community-based connectivity. The discussion featured participants from multiple regions including Lebanon, Colombia, Lithuania, Singapore, North Africa, Bolivia, and Bangladesh, with both in-person panelists and online participants facilitated by online moderator Judith Hellerstein.

The session explored how different stakeholder groups can collaborate to close the digital divide through locally-driven network solutions, with participants sharing experiences across different geographical and socioeconomic contexts.

## Fundamental Principles: Internet Access as a Human Right

The discussion established internet connectivity as a fundamental human right rather than a luxury. Shafiq Shaya from RIPE NCC emphasized this principle while sharing a success story from Lebanon, where a mobile bus initiative helped a young woman access digital literacy training and become an entrepreneur in handicrafts.

Shaya argued that connectivity problems are primarily policy failures rather than technology issues, stating: “We need to stop talking about that the stakeholders group like civil society, technical community, academics, are just supporter partners. No. We need to be active partners. So government cannot solve and cannot bridge everything alone.”

Roberto Zambana, participating online from Bolivia, noted that over 30% of Bolivia’s population lacks internet access, illustrating the persistent scale of the digital divide. A participant from Bangladesh highlighted that despite decades of attention, “20 years ago we were talking about digital divide. After 20 years we are same talking about the digital divide… When community projects end, network is end.”

## Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration and Active Partnerships

A central theme emerged around transforming traditional stakeholder relationships from passive support to active partnership. Julius Zube from NRD companies in Lithuania provided a concrete example through the “Window to the Future” initiative, which he described as creating the “largest public network of internet points in all of the Europe” in public libraries through collaboration between telecommunications companies, banks, and government entities.

Aicha Jerid from North Africa reinforced this collaborative approach, emphasizing that “policies are not only for governments – civil society organisations have responsibility to participate.” She advocated for National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) to take initiative in reaching out to governments rather than waiting for government-led initiatives.

Lillian Chamorro from Colombia supported this perspective, highlighting how NRIs can bring different viewpoints to strengthen the community networks ecosystem, emphasizing that building community networks requires multiple actors working together.

## Community Empowerment and Ownership Models

Aicha Jerid introduced a broader conceptualization of community networks beyond technical infrastructure: “Community network is not only about connectivity and infrastructure. It is also more about empowerment, empowerment of the less privileged ones… So I think that the community network plays a vital role in ensuring that these communities are not only passive users of Internet, but also active in connecting the other communities.”

Kweku Entry from the African Community Network Program posed critical questions about community ownership: “Are we talking about community networks as we’re going in to implement community networks for them or with them whilst they own this?” He advocated for community ownership and investment models where communities have shares and can invest in their own network infrastructure.

Roberto Zambana supported this community-centered approach by describing community network readiness assessment courses that enable communities to work on their own connectivity solutions from the beginning.

## Policy and Regulatory Framework Needs

Participants identified the need for different regulatory approaches for community networks compared to traditional commercial internet service providers. Lillian Chamorro advocated for reduced regulatory requirements, simplified reporting procedures, and access to universal access funds for community networks serving vulnerable communities.

She emphasized that community networks should be based on principles of openness, sharing, and community ownership rather than commercial models. Aicha Jerid complemented this by advocating for policies that invest in inclusive digital education and training, including programs specifically designed for people with disabilities through Schools of Internet Governance.

The discussion highlighted challenges posed by monopolistic practices of large ISPs that prevent community network development, particularly in regions like North Africa.

## Financing Mechanisms and Sustainability Models

Claude Dorion, economist and general manager of MCA Conseil, introduced social economy principles as alternatives to traditional commercial or charity-based models. He described social economy enterprises as “collectively owned enterprises who have social mission managed through a collective democratic governance representing the community that they serve.”

Dorion proposed mixed financing strategies where “grants finance impact, loan finances assets and specialized financing feed working capital.” However, this approach generated some discussion with Kweku Entry, who questioned reliance on external funding and advocated for genuine community ownership models that promote self-reliance.

Lillian Chamorro suggested that community networks should have access to universal access funds specifically for vulnerable communities, while Julius Zube’s Lithuanian example demonstrated successful public-private partnership models.

## Technology Solutions and Innovation

Henry Wang from Singapore introduced emerging technological approaches including decentralized physical infrastructure networks using blockchain protocols and mesh networks. He also discussed space-ground integration networks using low-Earth orbit satellites as potential solutions for connecting remote areas.

While these technological innovations generated interest, they represented a different paradigm from the grassroots community-driven approaches emphasized by other speakers.

## Capacity Building and Digital Literacy

Participants consistently emphasized that digital literacy and capacity building must be integral components of community networks. Aicha Jerid argued that digital skills training should be embedded within community network development from the beginning, not treated as separate add-on services.

The Bangladesh participant highlighted practical challenges including technical knowledge gaps, brain drain from rural to urban areas, expensive technical devices, and lack of technical expertise in rural areas. Roberto Zambana addressed these through community network readiness assessment courses that build local capacity for network management and maintenance.

## Role of Technical Organizations and NRIs

Shafiq Shaya described how RIPE NCC supports communities through expertise, resources, and funding for grassroots engagement, offering concrete assistance beyond policy discussions. He explained that technical platforms like Network Operator Groups complement NRI policy discussions by providing practical technical support.

An online participant from Lebanon, Zaina, specifically asked about roles NRIs can play in fostering community networks, highlighting interest in practical guidance for regional initiatives.

## Regional Perspectives and Challenges

The discussion benefited from diverse regional experiences. Lillian Chamorro shared Colombian experiences with community networks that complement traditional operators, while Aicha Jerid provided North African perspectives on challenges posed by ISP monopolies.

Julius Zube’s Lithuanian success story demonstrated how developed countries can benefit from innovative multi-stakeholder approaches, showing that community network principles apply across different economic contexts.

## Audience Participation and Questions

The session included active participation from online attendees, with questions about specific roles for NRIs and technical organizations in fostering community networks. Peace Oliver Amuge facilitated discussion around practical next steps and mentioned connections to AFRICYC and other regional initiatives.

## Key Challenges and Next Steps

Several unresolved challenges emerged, including the high cost of technical devices, lack of technical expertise in rural areas, and the need for sustainable financing models that balance external support with community ownership.

Practical action items included encouraging NRIs to take initiative in policy engagement, connecting communities with technical organizations like RIPE NCC for support, and creating digital inclusion councils or skill ambassadors at local levels.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated significant alignment among diverse stakeholders on fundamental principles while revealing different approaches to implementation. The emphasis on transforming stakeholder relationships from passive support to active partnership, combined with community empowerment and appropriate policy frameworks, provides a foundation for advancing community-based connectivity solutions.

The conversation highlighted that successful community networks require ongoing processes with continuous support rather than one-time interventions, emphasizing the need for sustained collaboration among all stakeholders to ensure internet access becomes a reality for all communities.

Peace Oliver Amuge: important role in the next. OK, you ready? Really? OK. Hello, everyone. Can you hear me? OK, thank you. You’re most welcome to this session. It’s NRA’s collaborative session on sustainable models for community-based connectivity. And I am very privileged to be your host today. My name is Peace Oliver Muge, and I work for the Association for Progressive Communications. And we are on channel 5 for your information. And I will right away go to just give you a brief introduction on the session. We have distinguished panelists that I’ll give a moment shortly to introduce themselves. And this session is really talking about local connectivity or community networks. As we’re all aware that even if we know that access to internet is a fundamental human right, we still know and we’ve witnessed in different spaces where we work or live that there are still very many people that are not connected to the internet. People in rural communities, urban areas, indigenous communities are still not connected. And so it is very pivotal for us to have this kind of engagement and discuss alternative ways that we can have or close this gap. And so you should look forward to our engagement. We will be looking out for some of the challenges. We will share our experiences in the different communities, different projects or initiatives that we have done towards closing this gap. And we will also talk about some of the existing policy frameworks or challenges that we have witnessed. So without wasting any time, I will already invite you, Shafiq, to start off already this discussion. And my question to you is, how can and inclusive policy and strong regulations framework close the digital divide, lower Internet costs. Can you hear me? I cannot hear myself at all. It feels like I’m speaking to myself. Thank you. So, Shafiq, I’m coming to you. Before you answer these questions, would you just introduce yourself briefly? Thank you.

Shafiq Shaya: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Shafiq Shaya. I am the regional manager for public policy and government efforts for RIPE NCC, and I am a member at the IGF Lebanon, ex-chair of the IGF MAG in Lebanon. So it’s a pleasure to be here with you today, and thanks for the invitation. Just to answer your question, so addressing this question in today’s context is not about improving infrastructure or updating regulation. It’s about recognizing that accessibility and connectivity to the Internet is a right and not a luxury. So when we talk about connectivity, about rolling the cost of the Internet, about policy and regulation, we are really talking about the people, people who are in rural areas, remote areas, in refugee camps that they don’t have the chance to connect. They cannot get online. So I just have one question here for the audience. How many of you come from a country where the connectivity in rural or remote areas is still a challenge? So, yes, and you are not alone. In many parts of my region, the Middle East and beyond, there is a problem with the Internet, and This is a challenge, but this challenge is not about technology, it’s not about we don’t have the connectivity, and it’s about a policy failure. Let’s put it in this dimension. So just I want to share with you a very simple but powerful story about this community initiatives and community network and how it works. In one of the small mountain villages in Lebanon, we had a young woman, she had skills and she was selling handicrafts, crochet, that means covers for tables and for chairs, but she hadn’t the way to reach customers. So one of our initiatives was led by the municipalities, some academics and civil society, is to have a bus, a mobile bus, where we visit this village twice a week. So we met this young lady and now this young lady, after she got the online, after she got the digital literacy, now she’s a young entrepreneur and she offers a job to other young ladies and she’s selling her handicrafts and her products online. So the main message here is we do not or we don’t need to wait for government development plans to go to these rural areas. When community work together, we can get the connectivity and this connectivity can give the opportunity to these people like this young lady. To the second part of your question about the strategic alliances and how we can do this together, first thing that I want to say here, I believe we need to stop talking about that the stakeholders group like civil society, technical community, academics, are just supporter partners. No. We need to be active partners. So government cannot solve and cannot bridge everything alone. We need to work with governments. So my message here is for all my colleagues, please, when you talk to government, don’t just sit down and talk and listen to them. You need to be a partner. You need to collaborate. Because inclusive policies, based on my experience, I have been working for the last 20 years with governments, it is not written in the ministries or at the regulator authorities. These inclusive policies should be involved with the stakeholders, with communities, and should be based on trust and locally and reality on the ground. So we need to have these policies as needed, not theoretically just to write it on a piece of paper. So community has an important role to play in connecting people in partnership with governments. Thank you.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you very much, Shafiq, for really pulling out and bringing out some of these things, especially that we should all be active partners, not pointing fingers to the other stakeholders, but we should all be active partners, and also the pivotal role that the community itself plays. And right away, I will come to you, Lillian. Before you speak, just briefly introduce yourself to the audience. Lillian, how should national regulations be adopted to support the legal establishment and operations of community networks? Thank you.

Lillian Chamorro: Thank you, Peace, and all of my partners. I’m Lillian Chamorro, I’m part of Colnodo team, that is an NGO based in Colombia that also is part of the IGF from Colombia, and we are also the secretariat of the Latin American and Caribbean IGF. We in Colnodo have experienced accompanying communities in the creation and maintenance of community networks. We think that it’s necessary to recognize that The diversity of connection possibilities should be recognized because the actual connection, the actual enterprises no respond to the needs of the communities because the communities don’t have the enough income, don’t have the enough people, then the communities no respond to the needs of the large operators. Therefore other connectivity models are needed, diversified models that complement the work of traditional operators oriented by principle of openness, sharing, and community. These community models cannot have the same requirements as traditional models. They must have a reduce of exempted fees and reporting requirements must be simplified and adapted to the conditions of these networks. On other hand, these models should have access to the resources of universal access funds. In Colombia we have the FUTIC, that is the universal fund, which is intended to bring connectivity to vulnerable communities that are usually in remote areas and do not have the possibility of accessing this type of resources. Although in Colombia community networks initiatives are financed by universities or by international funds, such as ISOC or also the LogNet program from APC, but there are not public resources oriented to the implementation and support of community networks. In addition, it should be allowed to implement models of alternative economies or economías propias, as we said in Spanish, in the operation and maintenance of the networks different of the commercial models. So, I think it’s very important for us to make sure that the access to the community networks and other resources such as spectrum and backhaul networks should be facilitated, which due to the legislation and high cost do not allow communities to access, facilitate the access to backhaul, which means a diminution of the possibility to access to backhaul, means a diminution of cost for the network maintenance and more than 10% of the network maintenance.

Peace Oliver Amuge: So, I think that’s a very important thing, and I do agree with, you know, exploring the different models that exist, openness, you know, addressing the needs of the community, and when you bring that with what Shafiq started us on talking about, the different stakeholders, I want to bring in Julius now, and Julius, my question to you is that what strategic alliances between government, civil society, academy and private sector can be used to ensure that the digital transformation is sustainable, and what are the key pillars for ensuring that digital transformation is sustainable?

Julius Zube: Thank you very much. So, maybe just to briefly introduce, my name is Julius Zube. I represent NRD companies, which is a private sector representative from Lithuania, which closely cooperates both with the Lithuanian government sharing our last 30 years of digital transformation experience, including in the field of digital transformation, and I’m also a member of the Lithuanian government. So, when we became first independent in the 1990s, we had a unique situation where we had to, as any country, to breach the rural and urban gap in terms of digital divide, and one thing that was proposed, actually, for Lithuanian government by the academia was, first of all, to establish what we called a rural area Internet networks, by acronym RAIN, which basically the government was trying to establish a network, which is basically a network that is open to private Internet service provider to do the last mile connectivity to sort of make it financially viable for these private companies to then provide that. can stimulate private sector provision in underserved areas. And then one thing, when you refer to collaboration between different stakeholders, the next actually very interesting initiative was called Window to the Future, which started in 2000s and actually was initiated by telecommunication companies and private banks, because they noticed, there was a, who started a dedicated NGO, which with the objective to establish centers in rural areas where people can get wifi access, digital skills, and everything that they need to use the connectivity that they would be provided. The idea was here that telecommunications wanted more people using digital services, or overall, you know, digital connectivity, so that improves their consumer base. The banks wanted more people using digital banking services, so then that simplifies their own processes, you know, they don’t need to serve as many people in their offices, and in terms, then the government actually jumped in and said, this is a great idea, let’s do that. What came out of it is actually the largest public network of internet points in all of the Europe, which is provided to public libraries. And we believe that this is a great collaboration between a critical service points in any community, which in Lithuanian case is a public library, and funding provided by the private sector and the government sort of providing the, you know, the mandate that you need to initiate these things. And we believe that this model is really adaptable to other contexts. For example, my company, we recently had a project in Kenya where a similar model was considered, but instead of public libraries, we were working with the Postal Corporation of Kenya and proposing a model how the already existing infrastructure of the postal networks could be brought to a second life to also provide similar networks. Thank you.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you. Thank you, Julius, and that’s a good example of how when all stakeholders come together, it’s stronger with this example of the window to the future. So thank you for sharing that. I would like to announce that we have online participants and Judith is our… a moderator, so we will ensure that when we open the floor, we give you opportunity to engage. I will come to you, Henry, and please introduce yourself briefly, and then my question to you is how can rural, indigenous and Afro-descent communities effectively participate? I’m sorry, yeah, I was asked to moderate the session last minute, so I am not aware. This is my Julia, so excuse me for that, yeah. So my question to you is that, Henry, I mean, how can rural, indigenous and Afro-descent communities effectively participate in connectivity, policymaking, and what strategies are needed to build their capacity to manage and sustain their own network infrastructure and services? Thank you.

Henry Wang: Okay, very good questions. Hello, everyone, and my name is Henry Wang. I’m from the Singapore IGF. I’m also the co-founder for the World Web 3 Alliance. So today’s topic is a community driving network, and it’s very important, and it aligns with IGF. So IGF is the bottom-up, and the community network is also bottom-up, but when we talk about a community network, sometimes we don’t have enough or enabled tools to build a community network, but now time is shifting, and this empowered blockchain protocol can actually help the community to build their own network based on mesh network, which is a peer-to-peer connections. So with peer-to-peer connections, people can build a village network, but with one of the node we call the mesh box. You can connect it to the low-Earth orbit. orbital satellites. Then you can immediately form a space ground integration network. So this kind of a decentralized infrastructure network, we call it decentralized physical infrastructure network, called D-PIN. So this D-PIN is going to revolutionize our infrastructure within the next one decade, 10 years. So within 10 years, I believe the whole humanity can be connected with this space ground integration network. Because it’s bottom up, so everyone can participate. So there’s a protocol to guarantee the contributors, and the users, and validators to organize a fair network for everyone. So we call it people’s network. And I invested into one of the company in Chicago who are building the outdoor meshbox with solar panel and also with a battery. So they can even work without power. So in those remote areas, rural areas, like mentioned by several of our panelists, in those areas, we can immediately build a network for people. So the low Earth orbital satellites is not only starting. There are so many constellations under construction. So within three to five years, all of them will put into operation. So space ground integration network will be the future of our community network. So therefore, we are talking about the policies in every country, especially emerging countries, how to encourage people to build a network together. It’s not centralized. It’s not been decided by the centralized carriers where to build network, but the community themselves can decide, can work together to organize a community-based network. So it’s cost effective and also with the broadband and, you know, bandwidth, it can help people to actually, you know, earn their breakfast, earn their educations. So this is the underground layer of the infrastructure. And upon this layer, we’ll have the Web 3.0, which actually decentralizes the data ownership, which means for emerging countries, they don’t have to turn over their data. They can preserve their data, their language, and their cultures. So with the community network and the Web 3.0 layer, like Lingo AI is doing for all the diversity of languages and cultures, I believe the emerging countries can become gradually become wealthy and gradually own their own data and protect their culture and languages. Thanks.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you very much, Henry, for mentioning, you know, the bottom-up approach, the decentralization of the networks and the cost effectiveness. And since you brought that up, I will come to you now, Claude, to talk about the funding mechanism and incentives that can support sustainable community networks. Please introduce yourself briefly. Yes.

Claude Dorion: Hello. My name is Claude Dorian. I’m an economist, general manager of MCA Conseil, which is a non-profit consultancy specialized in financial and development strategy for collective projects. Financing connectivity is a complex question, so I’m trying to offer a four-minute… answer is kind of countercultural for a guy who’s paid by the hour usually. Connectivity is different things depending on who you are asking. For some people it’s a market, for other people it’s a right. We may argue that in between it’s a social, essential social service supplied by an economic activity with a technical solution. But this right has to be supplied and financed from private sector, public sector or social civil society. With the limited resources that the public sector has and the important wave of diminishing resources coming from international corporation, it seems that we are condemned at finding some blended strategy to supply financial solutions to a large scale. I mainly bring the experience of social economy to this debate. Social economy is constituted of collectively owned enterprises who have social mission managed through a collective democratic governance representing the community that they serve. It is a way of undertaking collectively for the common good. Social economy has developed a culture of mixed financing where grants finance impact, loan finances assets and specialized financing feed working capital through long-term flexible loans without guarantee or supported by external or public guarantee scheme. We believe that this is a constructive path to use philanthropy as leverage. and with the aim of multiplying its impact for community connectivity. And because I’m an economist, I kind of have the tendency to see things as a supply and demand situation. On the supply side, we have to build a network of a few complementary financial actors that will work together with mutually supportive products in the same projects in order to share analysis, share risk, and insight in order to raise the financial supply and lower its cost. On the demand side, I also believe that connectivity initiatives may need management and technical support services in order to identify the best solution and to deliver the kind of business case because we are in fact social businesses, business plans that will be closer in content and in format to what social financial actors may expect or wish for. It is really a dialogue between digital divide and financial divide, and I believe this dialogue can be constructive, leading to a fair financing solution to collective projects, bringing positive social impact and economic impact. As fair trade brought higher selling price for growers, fair financing could bring lower prices for users of connectivity emerging from community-based projects. Thank you.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you very much, Claude, for those elaborate points, and I think these are really good strategies that we need to take if we want to ensure that the financing mechanism works for our goal to ensure that we close the gap and we have many people connected as we are in this room connected. I will come to Ayesha, we’re about to come to the floor, so don’t feel impatient. there? And I think all of us have the same meaning for what we’re doing. So moving on, so we’ve talked about these topics and all that, how do the common economico-cultural practices rivivalize?

Aicha Jerid: Just AV project I anticipate you would be Nikita about taking over all of us and also all of the other people in the room. So I’m Nikita, I’m the director of the community network, I’m here to represent the North African part of the continent. Maybe it is very relevant in this context to say that community network is not only about connectivity and infrastructure. It is also more about empowerment, empowerment of the less privileged ones and also empowerment of the people who have access to the Internet. So I think that the community network plays a vital role in ensuring that these communities are not only the global community, are not only passive users of Internet, but also active in connecting the other communities and also in shaping the realities of the disconnected. So talking about the digital skills, I think that the first policy that we should have is that we should have a policy that we can invest in inclusive or more inclusive digital education and training. This is by creating a policy, government should create policies that ensure that everyone has access to digital literacy, either in schools or in adults, adult literacy. Second, we should have a policy that ensures that all people have access to information in all areas and include rural areas as well as urban areas in digital skills. And the third policy should support training in rural areas. This is in cooperation with civil society. And maybe it’s important in this context related to the digital skills especially to mention the efforts done by the school of Internet governance and the regional initiatives of Internet governance, whether it’s north, south, west, and their initiative or their schools and the trainings they do on a yearly basis, and the students, women, and people with disabilities, because last year, for instance, in our school of Internet governance in North Africa, we have included a great number of people with disability. We’ve trained them. We’ve had them participate in our school and certify. So these initiatives can help also enable these people to get the technical skills and why not build their own local communities. The second area that policies can encourage digital skills is to enable local community to design and manage its own infrastructure. This is also by reducing the dependencies on large cooperation, ISP cooperation, because we know, for instance, in North Africa, we don’t have community-based networks. We don’t have it because of the monopoly of the giant ISPs, and we cannot build that. So it is maybe it’s time to, it’s a call for community, for people who have been trained, for people who are skilled to gather and think about creating community networks in Africa and North Africa especially. So the third area that policies can promote access to affordable Internet. So this is by reducing the taxes on digital devices, it’s also by supporting more and more use of public Internet access, such as in schools and libraries, and we are talking about both rural and more rural areas and also urban areas. Communities can also recognize local communities and recognize the efforts of local communities by offering them small grants, by encouraging them, offering them very, very small grants or even loans with low interests that can help them create their own community network. And finally, it is the most important one because it includes more than one stakeholder because all stakeholders should participate to create policy. Policy is not the creation of government only, it’s a collective effort because civil society, for instance, in terms of skills and capacity building, have more experience in that regard. So I invite more participation of civil society initiatives to gather with the government, also the private sector, to foster partnership with these local community networks. Finally, why not create digital inclusion council or digital skill ambassadors who will promote the idea of community-based networks and work with multi-stakeholders to improve connectivity in rural areas. This is all from my side. Thank you for not cutting my word.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you. And you know why I didn’t cut you? Because you talked about the school of Internet governance. I coordinate AFRICYC, so definitely I was agreeing to what you were saying. And so we’re going to open up in a bit. I think we will use the mics there. So yes, I think you can take the floor. But before, as you take, you go on the queue, we have Roberto who is online. Is he? Yes. Yes. If you could, if we can have Roberto Zambana question. Okay, Roberto, I think you can go and we’ll have AV people unlock your mic and video.

Roberto Zambana: Thank you very much, Judith. Peace. It’s a great honor to be part of this session as well. This time I want to share very quickly how we were working in Bolivia, in our NRI in Bolivia. I will say five years ago, and key element is the way that we had the coordination with the government, not only the head of the sector, the telecommunications vice minister, but also the regulators office. And from last year, and I will say even the last two years, we started to work with enabling capacities in communities because the community network, we understand that is a fantastic solution for bridging the gap we have regarding all the people. I will say most, more than 30% of Bolivian population that don’t have access to internet. And another important fact that I would like to share, because I’m also working with Internet Society Foundation, is from this organization we work with capacity building, especially in a course that we have, which is the community network readiness assessment. And this course enables the communities themselves to work in their connectivity solutions from the beginning. It’s very important because And usually this kind of projects, this kind of initiatives comes directly bringing the solutions without even in some cases consulting the communities, consulting the beneficiaries. And the correct approach I will say it’s to build the concept from the beginning, understanding the nature of the needs and working together with them again from the beginning to define what kind of solutions will actually fit their particular needs in terms of connectivity and of course the solutions that we called community based are one of the best examples of working together with the communities from the beginning and thinking about the specific solutions that are related with technology, with approaches, with how the leaders of the communities can embrace this kind of solution and of course working together with the rest to have not only a successful community network but especially a community network that is going to be sustainable in the future because that’s the other aspect that we need to think from the beginning and to define the different strategies to work with that goal. So that’s what I wanted to very quickly contribute and once again thank you for the opportunity to do it. Thank you very much Judith and Pius.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you very much Roberta and we have a hand there. We also have a question online. So we take, yes, you can go.

Kweku Entry: Thank you so much. My name is Kweku Entry, I’m from the African Community Network Program and I just like the contributions from, I think it was from the financier as well as, is it the, is it Malaysian? Singapore. Singapore. Singapore. Singapore. Yeah. So all I see is collaboration, collaboration, collaboration as a theme going up. and the base of community network is community-based. In terms of financing, I think one of the issues that we have is about the buying of those we are trying to provide a solution for. What am I talking about? I come from Africa, and in Africa, it’s very different. When we’re talking about community networks for the people who are in the roots and the grassroots, are we talking about community networks as we’re going in to implement community networks for them or with them whilst they own this? In our program on the African Community Network, which actually evolved from projects in Costa Rica and in Africa, you see that the community people are involved and they are buying, whether it’s the data or they are involved in the ownership. How do we transcend the funding into community ownership where they see that they have the shares in which they are able to invest? Because most of the communities we are talking about, most times, do not have the funds. And for the last speaker who was online about the sustainability, I think we are at a point here where we need to be able to have some of these funding things. Some of us are doing this, and we know the challenges. I’m just asking so that we can be able to join ourselves and see how we’re able to solve these things and move the community networks. Because without community networks, all these gaps we are talking about is never going to be achieved. Connecting everybody is not going to be top down. It’s going to be bottom up, and it’s going to be more meaningful and impactful. Thank you.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you very much. And Judy, we can take the online question or comment, and then we can go with the hand that we have.

Judith Hellerstein: Yes, so we have a question from Zaina from Lebanon. And her question is to all the speakers is, in their opinion, what roles can NRIs play?

Peace Oliver Amuge: important anyway can inspire, can inspire people to do to see discourse to hopefully make developer wise play in fostering community networks. We can start with you. Your mic, is it on?

Audience: Thank you very much for inviting me to be a part of this forum. I’m a member of the Internet Governance Forum. I have some observation. 20 years ago we were talking about digital divide. After 20 years we are same talking about the digital divide. Problem is the community network. Community network is facilitated only for rural area. It is not facilitated in the community. It is not facilitated in the community. They are not facilitated in the community supported in fund. If we are starting the community project, community project is okay. Network is okay. When community projects end, network is end. When we are starting community projects, community projects are not facilitated in the rural area. Rural area, because they are thinking about if I am technical person, I’m going to rural urban area because they have better job. I’m not living in the rural area. Another problem is the technical device. Device is very much higher price. If rural area one technical device is not available, they have to go to the rural area, they have to go to the rural area, they have to go to the rural area. So here is a challenge is the affordable and another challenge is the technical knowledge. This is my observation from Bangladesh concept. Thank you very much.

Peace Oliver Amuge: We have, yes, do we have someone on line? No, but I don’t think the question was answered. She asked a question about how can Still, not so much that we do together, not to put the lives at risk but rather some partnership that for example, we’re playable and fostering community networks. So we’ve taken that note, the list of other former questions. we can pass around and you can answer. If the government put attention, we can have some news for creating the community network we were trying to do, we can meet somewhere and we have seen that the need to specify, these are a sort of civic issues. another component that I think we are leaving out and that’s to do with the rural network, we need to make sure that we have a network that is able to locate a buyer. Because when you have a rural farmer who has his produce and they want to look for market for this produce, this farmer needs a network to be able to locate a buyer. So if we want to build this rural network, we need to have a network that can locate a buyer. And I think that’s where we have to align the need. A rural dweller would like to request for a passport. They have to travel to the city before they can get the passport. So if you attach the need to it, we are solving the problem. Thank you. possibilities of entry and entry into other countries and in different countries.

Shafiq Shaya: So thank you very much for take our time this afternoon. If you encourage too much, otherwise we won’t have the opportunity to gather all the attendees in front of you to talk to you during this talk. Thank you very much. Thank you. network and network numbers for communities. So, from a RAP-NCC perspective… What we do is we support very closely and we engage with the NRIs and with all multi-stakeholder platforms like NOGs, Network Operator Groups. These NOGs or these platforms are technical platforms that can complement the NRIs’ discussion, which are the policy platforms. So giving the community, giving the end users the expertise needed, giving them the resources, not only the expertise, sometimes we go there and we fund this engagement on the ground. So doing this, we engage with the end users, with the individuals, with the communities to build their own community, because part of our engagement is building communities. So happy, my colleague Bahan is there, I’m here, happy to help you, to answer a few questions how we can support you in building your own community. Thank you, peace.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you, Shafiq, and anybody else? Aisha, you want to?

Aicha Jerid: Just, yeah, thank you, peace. Just to emphasize and to add to what Mr. Shafiq said, as just an example from the North African IGF, so for instance, we represent the North African NRI, and we, during the last year, we have reached out to the Ministry, Mauritanian Ministry of ICT, we had a meeting with the Minister and suggested a couple of regular online and on-site capacity building sessions, especially for women, and in rural, and in workshop, for instance. So we are in, we had the initiative, we took the initiative to go to the Ministry of ICT, and we were welcomed, we were much welcomed. So the lesson here, or the message I want to convey is that policies are not only for governments, and government may not have all the information or all the capabilities to be everywhere and to respond to all the people’s needs. So civil society organizations, NRI more specifically, schools or people who are working in And I think it’s very important to understand that the Internet Governance is not only about the Internet Governance, it’s also about the responsibility to reach out to ISPs as well as to governments and participate in shaping policies. Another point I wanted to react to is the comment said by a fellow from Bangladesh who underlined that community network is not only connectivity, and this is how I started my intervention. It’s not only about the Internet Governance, it’s also about the need to have a digital network because it means that giving the necessary skills to those people in rural areas or not even in rural areas. I spoke about people with disabilities which we do not mention much here. So they can be people living in urban areas, but they do not have the necessary skills to be connected. So I think it’s important to understand that the Internet Governance is not only about the Internet Governance, it’s also about the need to have a digital network that encompasses many steps. First of all, it starts with connectivity, and second of all, with capacity building. Capacity building includes digital literacy and also digital marketing for women entrepreneurs who are in the rural areas and who do not, first of all, know how to use their smart phone or mobile phone. So it’s not only about the Internet Governance, it’s also about the need to have a digital network that encompasses many steps. So I think, if I’m not mistaken, 40% in the global South Africa do not have smart phones because of the price of the smart phones and because of the connectivity and other issues. So just to cut the story short, digital literacy skills is part and parcel of the community-based networks. Thank you.

Lillian Chamorro: Thank you. Thank you. I would like to say that it’s important to recognize that building and maintaining a community network is a process. beginning and a finish. It’s all a process and we need public policy aligned with sustainability. That means funds, that means diversity of models, that means training, local governance, accompanying the communities, access to the spectrum, access to the backhaul, and create a strong ecosystem where multiple actors are involved. Then that is the importance also of the role of the NRIs because we don’t need only civil society or only governments. We need to discuss and bring different viewpoints about how to strengthen the community networks ecosystem.

Claude Dorion: Yes, we just conducted a survey with the Association for Progressive Communication where we had information from roughly 80 collectivity-centered connectivity initiatives. The basic conclusion was the really large diversity of those projects. They all share the fact that they emerge from a local initiative where the group of future users get together and build a network connected to another or totally autonomous. They differ by their revenue scale, their size, the number of users. They may be rural, they may be urban in poorer neighborhoods of large cities. The cases are really multiple and what we try to do is to have strategies where we bring external resources at the lowest cost possible in order to help complement the internal resources of those communities and materialize, implement their project. So, it’s all in total respect of the local initiative and it’s at the service of those communities that a financial ecosystem has to be built and adapted for each different project because the challenges are different from one project to the other. And I think that when we see the example of Ecuador with its 1% tax, I could say, on the profit of the private sector or the example that Julius presented about how the private sector is working with the public sector in order to bring some accessibility to communities. There are all example of mixing a public decision, some private resources with local regulation and local initiative in order to attract what we need as human resources, technical resources and financial resources in order to increase the number of people having access and lower the price that they have to support in order to pay for it. Thank you.

Peace Oliver Amuge: Thank you very much, Claude. And I don’t know if we can just know. It is a big no. Okay, I just want to thank you all for your time, for coming to this session, for your thoughts and a big thank you to the panellists for sharing the different engagements and the projects, initiatives that you have been doing on this. Thank you. .

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for addressing connectivity challenges

Speakers

– Shafiq Shaya
– Julius Zube
– Peace Oliver Amuge
– Lillian Chamorro
– Aicha Jerid

Arguments

Stakeholders must be active partners, not just supporters, working collaboratively with governments

Strategic alliances between government, civil society, academia, and private sector are essential for sustainable digital transformation

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential, with all parties being active partners rather than pointing fingers

NRIs should bring different viewpoints to strengthen the community networks ecosystem

NRIs should take initiative to reach out to governments and participate in shaping policies

Summary

All speakers strongly agree that successful community connectivity requires active collaboration between government, civil society, academia, and private sector, with each stakeholder group playing an active rather than passive role

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Internet access is a fundamental human right with persistent digital divides

Speakers

– Shafiq Shaya
– Peace Oliver Amuge
– Roberto Zambana

Arguments

Internet access is a fundamental human right, not a luxury, yet many rural, urban, and indigenous communities remain unconnected

Internet access is a fundamental human right, yet many people in rural, urban, and indigenous communities remain unconnected

Over 30% of Bolivia’s population lacks internet access, highlighting the scale of the digital divide

Summary

Speakers unanimously recognize internet access as a fundamental human right while acknowledging the persistent reality that many communities, particularly rural and indigenous ones, remain unconnected

Topics

Development | Human rights | Infrastructure

Community networks require different regulatory approaches than traditional commercial operators

Speakers

– Lillian Chamorro
– Aicha Jerid
– Claude Dorion

Arguments

Community networks need reduced or exempted fees and simplified reporting requirements compared to traditional operators

Policies should invest in inclusive digital education and training for all communities

Social economy enterprises with collective ownership and democratic governance can provide sustainable solutions

Summary

Speakers agree that community networks cannot operate under the same regulatory framework as commercial operators and need adapted policies that reduce bureaucratic burden and support alternative economic models

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Community ownership and empowerment are central to sustainable connectivity solutions

Speakers

– Aicha Jerid
– Kweku Entry
– Peace Oliver Amuge
– Roberto Zambana

Arguments

Community networks represent empowerment of less privileged communities, not just connectivity infrastructure

Community ownership and investment models are needed where communities have shares and can invest

The pivotal role of communities themselves in connectivity solutions should be recognized and supported

Community network readiness assessment courses enable communities to work on their own connectivity solutions from the beginning

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that effective community networks must be owned and driven by communities themselves, moving beyond external solutions imposed on communities to genuine community empowerment and participation

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Economic

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for alternative economic models that differ from traditional commercial approaches, emphasizing the need for diverse financing mechanisms that can support community-based initiatives through blended funding strategies

Speakers

– Lillian Chamorro
– Claude Dorion

Arguments

Alternative economic models should be allowed for network operation and maintenance

Mixed financing strategies combining grants, loans, and specialized financing can leverage philanthropy for greater impact

Topics

Economic | Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers present innovative technological and collaborative approaches to connectivity, with Henry focusing on decentralized technical solutions and Julius demonstrating successful multi-stakeholder partnerships

Speakers

– Henry Wang
– Julius Zube

Arguments

Decentralized physical infrastructure networks (D-PIN) using blockchain and mesh networks can revolutionize connectivity

The ‘Window to the Future’ initiative in Lithuania demonstrates successful collaboration between telecommunications companies, banks, and government

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasize that capacity building and digital skills training are not separate from connectivity infrastructure but integral components of successful community network implementation

Speakers

– Aicha Jerid
– Roberto Zambana

Arguments

Digital literacy and skills training are integral parts of community-based networks, not separate issues

Community network readiness assessment courses enable communities to work on their own connectivity solutions from the beginning

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Economic

Unexpected consensus

Policy development should not be left solely to governments

Speakers

– Shafiq Shaya
– Aicha Jerid
– Lillian Chamorro

Arguments

Stakeholders must be active partners, not just supporters, working collaboratively with governments

Policies are not only for governments – civil society organizations have responsibility to participate

NRIs should bring different viewpoints to strengthen the community networks ecosystem

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus that civil society and other stakeholders should not wait for government initiative but should proactively engage in policy development. This represents a shift from traditional views where civil society responds to government policies to one where they actively shape them

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Sociocultural

Community networks are fundamentally about empowerment, not just technical connectivity

Speakers

– Aicha Jerid
– Shafiq Shaya
– Kweku Entry

Arguments

Community networks represent empowerment of less privileged communities, not just connectivity infrastructure

Internet access is a fundamental human right, not a luxury, yet many rural, urban, and indigenous communities remain unconnected

Community ownership and investment models are needed where communities have shares and can invest

Explanation

Speakers unexpectedly converged on viewing community networks as tools for social and economic empowerment rather than merely technical infrastructure solutions. This broader conceptualization suggests a more holistic approach to addressing digital divides

Topics

Development | Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkably high consensus across multiple dimensions: the fundamental right to internet access, the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the need for alternative regulatory frameworks for community networks, and the centrality of community ownership and empowerment. There was also strong agreement on the importance of capacity building and the role of NRIs in policy development.

Consensus level

Very high consensus with significant implications for community network development. The alignment suggests a mature understanding of community connectivity challenges and solutions among practitioners. This consensus provides a strong foundation for coordinated action across different regions and stakeholder groups, indicating that the community network movement has developed shared principles and approaches that transcend geographical and sectoral boundaries.

Different viewpoints

Technology approach for community networks

Speakers

– Henry Wang
– Other speakers

Arguments

Decentralized physical infrastructure networks (D-PIN) using blockchain and mesh networks can revolutionize connectivity

Space-ground integration networks using low-Earth orbit satellites can connect remote areas cost-effectively

Summary

Henry Wang advocates for cutting-edge blockchain and satellite technology solutions, while other speakers focus on more traditional community-based approaches using existing infrastructure and regulatory frameworks

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Primary cause of connectivity problems

Speakers

– Shafiq Shaya
– Audience member from Bangladesh

Arguments

The connectivity problem is primarily a policy failure rather than a technology issue

Technical devices are expensive and technical expertise is lacking in rural areas

Summary

Shafiq frames the issue as primarily a policy failure, while the Bangladesh speaker emphasizes practical challenges like high device costs and lack of technical expertise in rural areas

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Unexpected differences

Role of external versus internal resources

Speakers

– Claude Dorion
– Kweku Entry

Arguments

External resources should complement internal community resources at the lowest possible cost

Community ownership and investment models are needed where communities have shares and can invest

Explanation

While both support community-centered approaches, Claude emphasizes bringing external resources to complement community efforts, while Kweku questions whether communities should rely on external funding at all, advocating instead for community ownership models. This represents a fundamental disagreement about dependency versus self-reliance

Topics

Economic | Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkable consensus on core principles (internet as a right, need for community networks, multi-stakeholder collaboration) but reveals significant disagreements on implementation approaches, particularly regarding technology solutions, financing mechanisms, and the balance between external support and community self-reliance

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. While speakers agree on fundamental goals, they propose different pathways to achieve them. The disagreements are constructive and complementary rather than conflicting, suggesting that multiple approaches could work in different contexts. The main implication is that community network solutions need to be flexible and context-specific rather than following a single model.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for alternative economic models that differ from traditional commercial approaches, emphasizing the need for diverse financing mechanisms that can support community-based initiatives through blended funding strategies

Speakers

– Lillian Chamorro
– Claude Dorion

Arguments

Alternative economic models should be allowed for network operation and maintenance

Mixed financing strategies combining grants, loans, and specialized financing can leverage philanthropy for greater impact

Topics

Economic | Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers present innovative technological and collaborative approaches to connectivity, with Henry focusing on decentralized technical solutions and Julius demonstrating successful multi-stakeholder partnerships

Speakers

– Henry Wang
– Julius Zube

Arguments

Decentralized physical infrastructure networks (D-PIN) using blockchain and mesh networks can revolutionize connectivity

The ‘Window to the Future’ initiative in Lithuania demonstrates successful collaboration between telecommunications companies, banks, and government

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasize that capacity building and digital skills training are not separate from connectivity infrastructure but integral components of successful community network implementation

Speakers

– Aicha Jerid
– Roberto Zambana

Arguments

Digital literacy and skills training are integral parts of community-based networks, not separate issues

Community network readiness assessment courses enable communities to work on their own connectivity solutions from the beginning

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Economic

Key takeaways

Internet connectivity is a fundamental human right, not a luxury, and the digital divide is primarily a policy failure rather than a technology issue

Community networks must be built with communities, not for them, emphasizing community ownership and participation from the beginning

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential – all stakeholders (government, civil society, academia, private sector) must be active partners, not just supporters

Community networks require different regulatory frameworks than traditional ISPs, including reduced fees, simplified requirements, and access to universal funds

Mixed financing strategies combining grants, loans, and specialized financing can leverage resources more effectively for community connectivity projects

Digital literacy and capacity building are integral components of community networks, not separate issues

Decentralized infrastructure models using blockchain, mesh networks, and satellite connectivity offer promising solutions for remote areas

Building and maintaining community networks is an ongoing process requiring continuous support and strong multi-actor ecosystems

NRIs and technical organizations play crucial roles in fostering community networks through policy engagement and providing expertise and resources

Resolutions and action items

NRIs should take initiative to reach out to governments and ISPs to participate in shaping connectivity policies

RIPE NCC offered to support communities with expertise, resources, and funding for grassroots engagement

Participants encouraged to connect with technical organizations like RIPE NCC for building community networks

Need to create digital inclusion councils or digital skill ambassadors to promote community-based networks

Establish networks of complementary financial actors to work together on community connectivity projects

Unresolved issues

How to address the high cost of technical devices and lack of technical expertise in rural areas

How to prevent brain drain of technical personnel from rural to urban areas

Specific mechanisms for ensuring community ownership and investment in network infrastructure

How to scale successful models like Lithuania’s ‘Window to the Future’ to different contexts and countries

Addressing the monopoly of giant ISPs that prevent community network development in regions like North Africa

How to align community network development with practical needs like connecting farmers to markets and accessing government services

Suggested compromises

Blended financing strategies that combine public, private, and philanthropic resources to make community networks financially viable

Allowing alternative economic models for community networks while maintaining some regulatory oversight

Creating simplified regulatory frameworks for community networks that are less burdensome than traditional ISP requirements but still ensure basic standards

Using existing infrastructure like postal networks and public libraries as connectivity points to reduce costs and leverage existing resources

Implementing mixed financing where grants finance social impact while loans finance assets, sharing risks among multiple actors

We need to stop talking about that the stakeholders group like civil society, technical community, academics, are just supporter partners. No. We need to be active partners. So government cannot solve and cannot bridge everything alone.

Speaker

Shafiq Shaya

Reason

This comment fundamentally reframes the relationship between stakeholders from a hierarchical support model to an equal partnership model. It challenges the traditional view where government leads and others follow, advocating instead for shared responsibility and active collaboration.

Impact

This comment set the collaborative tone for the entire discussion. Multiple subsequent speakers referenced this partnership theme, with Julius describing successful multi-stakeholder initiatives in Lithuania, and Aicha emphasizing that ‘policies are not only for governments.’ It shifted the conversation from discussing what governments should do to what all stakeholders can do together.

Community network is not only about connectivity and infrastructure. It is also more about empowerment, empowerment of the less privileged ones… So I think that the community network plays a vital role in ensuring that these communities are not only passive users of Internet, but also active in connecting the other communities.

Speaker

Aicha Jerid

Reason

This comment elevates the discussion beyond technical solutions to address the deeper social transformation aspect of community networks. It introduces the critical distinction between passive consumption and active participation, highlighting empowerment as a core objective.

Impact

This insight broadened the scope of the discussion significantly. It led other speakers to address capacity building, digital literacy, and community ownership. The Bangladesh participant later reinforced this by noting that technical knowledge and sustainability are ongoing challenges, not just initial setup issues.

In terms of financing… are we talking about community networks as we’re going in to implement community networks for them or with them whilst they own this?… How do we transcend the funding into community ownership where they see that they have the shares in which they are able to invest?

Speaker

Kweku Entry

Reason

This comment exposes a fundamental tension in development approaches – the difference between doing ‘for’ communities versus ‘with’ communities. It challenges the sustainability of external funding models and pushes for genuine community ownership and investment.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion toward more nuanced considerations of sustainability and ownership. It prompted Claude to elaborate on the diversity of community-led initiatives and the need for financial ecosystems that respect local initiative. It also reinforced the bottom-up approach that Henry had mentioned earlier with blockchain and mesh networks.

20 years ago we were talking about digital divide. After 20 years we are same talking about the digital divide… When community projects end, network is end.

Speaker

Bangladesh participant

Reason

This comment provides a sobering reality check on the persistence of the digital divide despite decades of efforts. It highlights the critical issue of project sustainability and the brain drain from rural to urban areas, challenging the effectiveness of current approaches.

Impact

This observation grounded the discussion in practical realities and highlighted systemic challenges. It prompted speakers to address sustainability more directly, with Lillian emphasizing that community networks are ongoing processes requiring sustained policy support, and Claude discussing the need for diverse, adaptable financial strategies.

Social economy is constituted of collectively owned enterprises who have social mission managed through a collective democratic governance representing the community that they serve… Social economy has developed a culture of mixed financing where grants finance impact, loan finances assets and specialized financing feed working capital.

Speaker

Claude Dorion

Reason

This comment introduces a sophisticated alternative economic model that bridges the gap between pure market solutions and charity-based approaches. It offers a concrete framework for sustainable community ownership while addressing the financing challenges raised by other speakers.

Impact

This contribution provided a practical framework that other speakers could reference. It influenced the discussion by offering specific mechanisms for the community ownership that Kweku had called for, and supported the collaborative approach that Shafiq had advocated. It helped move the conversation from identifying problems to proposing systemic solutions.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by elevating it from a technical problem-solving session to a comprehensive examination of power dynamics, sustainability models, and community empowerment. Shafiq’s call for active partnerships established a collaborative framework that influenced all subsequent contributions. Aicha’s emphasis on empowerment over mere connectivity broadened the scope to include social transformation. Kweku’s challenge about ownership versus charity forced a deeper examination of sustainability models, while the Bangladesh participant’s reality check grounded the discussion in practical challenges. Claude’s introduction of social economy models provided concrete alternatives. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a surface-level discussion about internet access into a nuanced exploration of community-driven development, sustainable financing, and genuine empowerment. The discussion evolved from identifying the digital divide to proposing systemic approaches for community-owned, sustainable connectivity solutions.

How many of you come from a country where the connectivity in rural or remote areas is still a challenge?

Speaker

Shafiq Shaya

Explanation

This was posed to gauge the scope of connectivity challenges across different regions and understand the commonality of rural connectivity issues among participants

What roles can NRIs play in fostering community networks?

Speaker

Zaina from Lebanon (online participant)

Explanation

This question seeks to understand the specific contributions National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives can make to support community network development

How do we transcend the funding into community ownership where they see that they have the shares in which they are able to invest?

Speaker

Kweku Entry

Explanation

This addresses the critical issue of moving from external funding models to sustainable community-owned financing structures for network infrastructure

Are we talking about community networks as we’re going in to implement community networks for them or with them whilst they own this?

Speaker

Kweku Entry

Explanation

This question highlights the need to clarify whether community networks should be implemented as external solutions or as truly community-driven initiatives with local ownership

How can rural, indigenous and Afro-descent communities effectively participate in connectivity policymaking?

Speaker

Peace Oliver Amuge

Explanation

This question was posed but not fully addressed, requiring further exploration of inclusive participation mechanisms for marginalized communities

What strategies are needed to build capacity of communities to manage and sustain their own network infrastructure and services?

Speaker

Peace Oliver Amuge

Explanation

This addresses the sustainability challenge of ensuring communities can independently maintain their networks long-term

How to solve the technical knowledge gap and device affordability challenges in rural areas?

Speaker

Participant from Bangladesh

Explanation

This highlights two critical barriers: lack of technical expertise in rural areas and high costs of technical devices needed for community networks

How can community networks be designed to address specific local needs like connecting farmers to buyers or enabling access to government services?

Speaker

Unnamed participant

Explanation

This suggests research into aligning community network development with concrete local economic and social needs rather than just providing connectivity