IGF 2023 – Day 4 –DC3 Community Networks: Digital Sovereignty and Sustainability – RAW

>> LUCA BELLI: All right. We are almost starting. We will start in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1! All right.

So, welcome, everyone, to this Annual Meeting of the DC3 Community Networks: Digital Sovereignty and Sustainability. It has been working on Community Connectivity issues for the past seven years. So, we are now at the 7th Annual Report. You can find here the Article piece and also on the web page of DC3 available for you to download.

The team this year that we have chosen, and some of you have developed in this report, is Community Networks Building Digital Sovereignty and Environmental Sustainability. The idea behind this is that Community Networks offer us a very good example of a digital connection of Digital Sovereignty and all Environmental Sustainability can be achieved through a community‑driven effort. Not necessarily only through policies and Governance systems defined by states, but also 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. Not only about totalitarian regimes, controlling and protectionism, but also very much about understanding the technology to be able to develop and regulate it in an effective way, and that is very much when the Committee networks have been doing over the past 20 years in terms of self‑determination, understanding how the Digital Technology works, developing it and creating their own Governance Models, self‑Governance Models to manage the connectivity and structure as a Commons.

Also, when you understand the technology, you understand not only the good benefits of the technology, but also the potential negative impact in terms of environmental externalities and try to understand how to develop it in a way that is more green, if you want, and also, you can leverage connectivity at the local level to support initiatives that promote sustainability.

This is in a nutshell what we will speak about 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 additional of the reports of the organisation.

She has been the force behind the panel. She will only be speaking lightly today because she was involved in intense karaoke yesterday evening! (Chuckles)

Let me also introduce our distinguished panelists, starting from Atsuko Okuda joining us remotely. Atsuko Okuda, ITU Asia‑Pacific, Intergovernmental Organisation. Then we have Raquel Gatto, CGI Brazil, Multistakeholder, Latin America and Caribbean. We have Amreesh Phokeer, ISOC, Technical Community, Africa that is also joining us online, together with Pedro Vilchez, guifi.net, Technical Community, WEOG also joining us online.

And back here this in‑person, we have Carlos Baca, Rhizomatica, Civil Society, Latin America and Caribbean.

So, without further ado, I would like to provide introductory remarks with the vision and interest that an organisation like the ITU may have in this kind of initiative we are discussing here. Atsuko, can you hear us?

>> ATSUKO OKUDA: Yes, and I hope you can hear me, too. I would like to start by thanking the organiser on today's session, DC3 Community Networks: Digital Sovereignty and Sustainability. This topic is close to my heart and a co‑area in ITU in Asia‑Pacific that we are undertaking in partnership with connectivity, UN Agencies, Government, Civil Societies, 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 released in September of 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 estimate 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‑Pac, more than 96% of the population is covered by 4G mobile networks. According to the ITU statistics.

Furthermore, the GMSA, global mobile supplier association reported that around 265 commercial 4G networks have been launched globally, and 62 in the Asia‑Pacific.

But universal and meaningful connectivity where everyone can enjoy a safe, satisfying, enriching experience remain as challenge in those regions.

Recognizing the role that digitalization plays, ITU and the Office of the UN Secretary General's committee on technology have established a set of aspirational targets for 2030 across Internet connectivity, achieving gender parity, addressing Digital Skills, broad band speed, and the probability measured at 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 toward the targets and efforts by 2030, we need a qualitative transformation in the way we approach the digital divides, and we connect the unconnected.

We learned that a side approach may not work any longer, and Strengthening the partnership is a must to create synergies and impacts.

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 island 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‑Pacific and aimed to deliver connectivity, Digital Skills, and priority digital services to rural and remote communities.

It is being delivered in close collaboration with various ministries, UN Agencies, the Private Sector and Civil Society and Academia. And it has generated tremendous support, including that of G20 members during the Indonesia meeting in 2022.

I am happy to see our colleagues here in the session as we recently conducted a study jointly. The report is entitled from telecentres, Community Networks, for sustainable smart villages and smart islands, which is under finalization.

The study identified six dimensions of sustainability, of course, financial, social‑culture, organisational, 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 am also very happy to see such a distinguished list of speakers today who will 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. Thank you. Back to you.

>> LUCA BELLI: 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 year, so please, Raquel, the Floor is yours.

>> RAQUEL GATTO: Thank you very much, Luca. I am happy to see a lot of familiar faces and new faces. I have a lot to cover, so I am trying to keep it short, and bring you at least three highlights that I think are important, covering the past two or 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 CGIs study on the Community Network. This was a study undertaken as more of a statistical approach. There are qualitative interviews, but the idea was to really bring this evidence‑based approach to what are the community networks, how they are being organised, and where the challenges, the State of art of the community networks, in Brazil, and really understand those and bring into more of the numbers and I want indicators that could guide some of the policy‑making.

I am not going through all of this study. I can point you ‑‑ and certainly this has circulated already in the Coalition, but I think it is 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. They continue to survive the first year and the other half don't know if they will survive another year.

So, looking at where we need to bring the efforts. It is not only about the resources in terms of money. Funding is one of them, but it is also the resourcing in terms of the technical requirements, the registration requirements, and how the regulatory environment is not helpful for the Community Networks to continue to survive and blossom.

So, that is one of the key takeaways I wanted to bring in from this study.

Then, of course, a major piece, and it was really what moved, let's say, the Brazil Government into more of the Community Network's friendly side is, a study was conducted 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, you know, 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 this recommendation for ANATEL for the communication ministry, for all those Decision Makers, what they need to do, or 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. So, that is among the recommendations.

So, the work that was done was the policy brief, but also the technical toolkit to show how Community Networks could with created, and of course, based on many of the materials that the members of the Dynamic Coalition has already circulated, so this would not be new in terms of content.

But it is new that it has landed into the telco regulator website, so ANATEL is promoting it as part of their work.

This is an important shift in the telco regulator approach to Community Networks.

And among the recommendations, so, I am 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, the Internet Service Provider's group and the Community Network leaders.

This recommendation has been taken on by ANATEL and created earlier this year, called the Community Network Working Group within ANATEL.

It had the mandate to August, and it was postponed until the end of this month, until the end of October. I just got the confirmation this morning that it is going to have an event hosted by ANATEL on November 22. So, for the Brazilians in the room, please, take them on your calendars.

So, the purpose of this group ‑‑ so, first, let me go one way back. When the APC 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 organisations that were the intermediaries and fostering the Community Network's development.

So, this local group provided advice on the materials that were done, and submitted, but also, it has evolved from 10, 12 people in the organisation that were involved, to now 40 or 50 that are really ‑‑ and it is really a growing number. We are calling the local Community Network in Brazil that held weekly meetings.

And this group has three seats in ANATEL's Working Group, so, for initial Workgroup. Why I am saying all of that, right? Why is this valuable for everyone listening, is the importance of keeping first this connection with the local Actors, to have the local goal, the common goal, to keep everybody on board with the same outcome and vision.

This was really important to bring us more strongly and show that somehow we are organised within and to interact within the Government Actors.

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's Working Group, the interaction with the other Actors, and how still Community Networks can be misunderstood is there. This is a risk. The understanding that Community Networks is community‑based, and it is not about the service itself. I know, one minute, is still a challenge.

But it has been broken down into 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, also in Brazil, we have an opportunity for 2024 with the G20, and I think, I, too was mentioning that.

It already announced an Agenda with a teaser on meaningful connectivity, so that is an opportunity to be taking on, and to tackle not only the Funding that needs to be done but the Funding and resources that need to be put in place for Community Networks. So, thank you very much.

>> SENCA HADZIC: Thank you, Raquel. We will make sure to circulate the materials, both the CGI study and the APC policy brief.

Now our next speaker who is joining us, Amreesh Phokeer, ISOC, Technical Community, Africa. He will tell us about ISOC's work on Community Network are working and give you as an overview on the links on Community Networks and Environmental Sustainability, welcome, Amreesh.

>> AMREESH PHOKEER: Fist of all I would like to remind the audience of the vision of the Internet Society, which is how the Internet is for everyone, and how we are working to make this vision area work. One of the projects involving is expanding Community Networks around the world.

We hope that by 2025 we will support more than 100 complimentary 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 South Africa to Asia. One recent intervention was the deployment of the Community Networks in the Himalayas, in Nepal, and the issue of Digital Sovereignty and environmental sustainability is key.

As you know, there are many places where access to electricity, especially in some African countries, is still an issue. Not only is the issue affordability, but even the stability of the network is a problem, as we 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 cost of equipment that we allow Community Networks to operate without being under great stress.

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, still need ‑‑ 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.

We at the Internet Society also try to promote the connectivity to local infrastructures such as Internet exchange points.

So, usually what we found is that a community network will rely on an Internet Provider, an 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 the Internet exchange point, it means local traffic will stay as much as possible.

As much as this local fabric is maturing, there is also a higher chance for, you know, 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.

Having local connectivity means that it is adding up to the equation of Environmental Sustainability, because, okay, if you are not using international bandwidth to access faraway content, it means that you are using less energy to access content, which is not good.

I will also stress on the very singular characteristic of Community Networks. We talk about self‑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 CAPs or services for Video Conferencing, so these are services we should promotes a much as possible on Community Networks.

Obviously this would increase local use and having less dependency on external services, 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, you know, create their own type of network, the network that will resemble the community itself, and what they think is important.

So, having the ability to create their own content, and upload their own 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, it creates this environment of stability, because it uses less energy, as well.

So, yes, these are my points I wanted to bring up today. Thank you.

>> SENCA HADZIC: Thank you, Amreesh. That was a really great overview.

(Applause)

Our next speaker is joining us from Spain. Pedro Vilchez is with guifi.net, a flagship Community Network in Catalonia and has been operating for almost 20 years and has 37 active notes and apart from providing connectivity, he is also promoting Circular economy and reduction of eWaste and Pedro will tell us more about guifi in his presentation. Welcome, Pedro.

>> LUCA BELLI: Pedro, can you hear us?

>> PEDRO VILCHEZ: I want to raise two topics, one is a proposal on reducing eWaste and another is why Community Networks are active here in Europe. We have a digital network in Barcelona with 100 members and I am also part of a connection that is part of guifi.net. I also professional work in a research group, this one, and I am involved in the tech project which is strong in both small and large scale communities.

The proposal on reducing eWaste is very simple. The root problem is that manufactures are becoming responsible on how WiFi routers are used. I put a note at the end. This is called an EU radio directive from Europe. The eWaste programme is specifically WiFi routers are generally designed for a very limited purpose and short timeframe. They cannot be changed or modified, and that eventually produces eWaste. The proposed solution is do the same as with computers.

Make its users be responsible on what they do. Allow these devices to fit and enter the Circular economy and be a part of, for example, the community nearby Barcelona.

Why Community Networks are required in Europe? First, let's present the problem. The problem in maintaining telecommunications infrastructure. 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, no? With 90s liberalization.

The Private Sector captured it, but they are struggling maintaining it. A recent discussion in Europe about big telco, they say too many operators is unsustainable, and the St. Louis is the United States model, hence, be less Actors in the market.

The solution, invest in Community Networks. Community Networks really solve society needs. Being a common‑pool resource model means Private and Public Sectors can still participate. As the other colleagues were saying, you know.

The financial institutions, Academia, Government. It is a non‑excludable model. And even if the model fails, it could behave as an accelerator, delivering a more competitive Private Sector. Here we have a proven experience with guifi.net. The ISP did a spinoff called somvera and from nothing they got 30 million Euro in annual turnover in 2022.

So, each Community Network is not only about delivering Internet access. They can also help in mutual aid, international corporation, sharing knowledge. Here from the exo perspective I would recommend apc.org or battlemesh.org.

We also have the xrcb project that is the community radio. It means bridging with the art and with the neighbors, and the concerns. Community radio could be a podcast platform.

We also have a project called plataformess and it can be described as resources usable by cooperatives from the solidarity economy.

We are serving realtime traffic that reduces international bandwidth with souths which guifi.net has instead of using Zoom.

So, here are the sources I use, and thank you.

>> LUCA BELLI: Fantastic. Thank you very much, Pedro, for being so sharp in the time management. I think there are a couple points that emerged that we can connect between what Pedro and Amreesh were saying, which resonate as 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 models during the IGF, but the multi‑stakeholder model is not only about having different Stakeholders discussing things, but it is also about having different Stakeholders building things, implementing things, defining the Governance Model that allows them to operate, even connectivity networks, but also implementing them, and creating a world digital ecosystem out of it.

That is a point, again, we have been stressing a lot over the past year. To me it is the core of what some years ago I was calling network self‑determination, which really is the basis of what the Digital Sovereignty conception of the Community Networks.

The fact that you create not only connectivity, but 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 then regulate the technology. It is really the essence of Digital Sovereignty. Not, again, in terms of totalitarian control, but empowerment and self‑determination of the local community.

We have been speaking and discussing and writing a lot about this with Carlos Baca for several years. You have been doing amazing work not only studying the network but building them with your friends. The Floor is yours.

>> CARLOS BACA: Thank you for having me here in the last day of the IGF. I know this is a big effort, so I am very happy to have the possibility to share with you. I want to address one question, how we can relate capacity‑building and Environmental Sustainability.

We will share with you some of the lessons that we learned in the process of developing the national exclusive Community Networks. They have been in place for three years. We started in the beginning of the pandemic, we started this project, and it is part of the initiative that is led by Rhizomatica and the digital access programme from the UK.

This has templates in five countries:  In South Africa Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil and Kenya. And in each of these countries we work with organisations that implement the process of these national schools.

And each of them are very different. There are no single curriculum, they are very different within each other. They share one thing, with the participatory action, we begin with the analysis of the context. We conform into the countries an Advisory Committee made by a specialist, and also people from the communities and organisation, et cetera.

They start to develop the design and then implement the school, and in each of the countries, also, we have seven micro‑organisations, seven community‑based organisations, took part in the training, and they were involved since the beginning in the design. They take Workshops, and then they have the opportunity to develop some small projects to benefit or treacherous the process in the communities.

So, this is the last part in.

This part is where a lot of the knowledge in 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 am sure you all know we have this problem of eWaste. This is from Mexico. This is not from the countries of the national schools, but this is a rooftop of a municipality in an Indigenous community in Mexico.

Only one of these infrastructure work, no? So, you know, this is a very, very big problem. It is related not only to the political ‑‑ the Public Policy that is implemented, but also the lack of capacities in the communities to maintain this.

So, one of the fierce lessons we have in this process is that if we, through capacity‑building processes, we develop this critical vision about the technologies, about the choosing of technologies, we have different ways to get resources that are related with the care of the environment and the territory.

I am sure we will talk more about it. For example, we developed bamboo towers, that are more sustainable, and also they are beautiful, no? Because they made their own houses with this architecture, and they took the same type of work to develop the towers.

But also in the school, some of the organisations developed ‑‑ use Artificial Intelligence to develop projects. Two projects that are beautiful.

One is the Fishermen to try to know where are they, the fish bank, and to travel less, to know where to go where the fish are. But also, to know what banks had more fish, or less.

So, they made a sustainable strategy of this fishing.

And the other 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 lay out all the tools, that have all the things they need to know to maintain the farms working. So, they have time to establish other projects.

They are joining with different projects, not related, actually, but they need to be taking care of the farms. So, it is very interesting and it is important.

And in another countries, like in Brazil and Nigeria, they use a lot of solar energy, so, as I said, even of the schools was very different.

The other point is that a peer‑to‑peer learning and the technical know‑how also help with this, no? Because if the people know how to maintain and keep, how to look for common failures, no, it implies less travel for the people who lives in the city who need to go to ‑‑ the technical people who go to repair the things. They are also very better at handling the equipment and there is less eWaste.

This process was evidence in which the national school of Community Networks was led by a Community Network. Not in all cases the organisation have Community Networks, but now almost all have it.

And in South Africa and Kenya they have it, so the technical knowledge is good transmission to everyone.

And the third one is the way in which in this training programmes, in this process, the people weaving in their Learning Communities. How to interact with each other and be a counterpoint. They establish doing different projects.

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 the communities. So, when they start to see how people are doing things in other territories, they figure out their own ways to take care of it.

Of course, someone says in this session, the local content and production is very important in this process, too. So, it is part of this territory and care of things.

Just to finalize with, inviting you to visit the CN learning repository. You will find a lot of learning materials. Soon, I think you will find also this. So, thank you very much.

(Applause)

>> LUCA BELLI: Thank you very much, Carlos, and also for pointing out the Community Network repository, which is an incredible source of material for anyone wishing to learn more or even building Community Networks.

Speaking of building Community Networks, no one better than Anil.

>> ANIL: Thank you, everyone. I am from Rhizomatica and I am stepping in for my colleague due to connectivity issues, so we see even here the ability to build a better Internet.

So, the publication here was entitled 10 environmental practices across environmental network sustainability.

I would like to tell you what our approach to this is, a complimentary methodology to the work just presented by Carlos Baca. Community Networks have challenges in terms of getting, you know, managing all the technologies involved and to transmit a small or put up a local network besides the regulatory challenges that we heard so far.

So, there is a need for complimentary Internet Solutions as we also heard earlier.

So, how could the community network do this also in an efficient way and collaborative way. The local network community mentioned was working for several years on innovation and technology, basically through peer context, but also on sub‑trending, and the effect and side effect, not so good one of side trending is each works 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, an approach where we brought in not only the Community Networks, but also other practitioners, engineers, experts on certain topics and also educators that are able to explain and build capacity of some issues.

So we look at what a Community Network needs to work with emerging technology, to be sustainable not only for itself but also for the planet.

I will pick out two examples and I would be happy to dye deeper in later discussions. So, what is the question of bamboo. What does bamboo have to do with a tech network, or where does this come in? But there is always a need for infrastructure, to build up mass structures. They need concrete, they need steel, and it is not a resource that is locally available.

So bamboo in many countries is available as a resource that can be grown or it is already there, so the question is how to treat it, how to select this bamboo. So, we were looking to build a community of practitioners there from India who had done some work on this. Someone within the wants to put up a bamboo garden and a couple of years have their own resource there.

And also the example of community designs of towers. How can we imagine towers that are easy to replicate.

One nice example was the tower we saw on the image earlier from Indonesia and Uganda, and they said we want to try to replicate this.

So, online, they were tutored and they put up the tower, so it is possible. This is kind of, yes, creative solutions 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 networks, additional networking. 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 the tax systems and the building blocks on the market, how can we make them available to people can use them safely, and that the equipment will be there for a good while.

How can they calculate what they need, and this was something ongoing. Also, there is some kind of new technology, some building‑blocks emerging, like maximum PowerPoint trackers, or making the energy use more efficient, open hardware and open software, so, very much in line also with the needs of communities.

And the last point maybe just to put out, local services is something that local networks work on different features, eLearning and also content production. To have those as was explained by guifi.net, to have those available on local servers is a great contribution because there is then an ownership on the data, the infrastructure and the capacity‑building needed for this.

But having the local service, again, and making those services, if it is nicely done, more sustainable to organisation them for the community but also the environmental impact can be reduced.

So, those are just some examples. Thank you very much. I am looking forward to further discussion.

(Applause)

>> LUCA BELLI: All right. We have finished our speakers. We now have an open mic for everywhere willing to provide comments, ask questions, or share any kind of thoughts.

So, if you want to discuss any ‑‑ raise an 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 you can use the mic there and ask your question. Please go ahead.

>> (Speaking non‑English language).

>> If you and I can translate.

>> She was talking about how militia and traffic‑dominated territories, 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.

>> (Speaking non‑English language).

>> She is talking about how they offered to help her create a Community Network but they figured they shouldn't do it because it was a life‑threatening risk because of the militia and the traffic. Now she is asking what could be done? How can we think about this kind of specific problem in this context.

>> LUCA BELLI: For the sake of another question and we can have a round of answers with the group.

>> Hello, my name is (?). I am part of the youth Delegation from Brazil. I am in receipt of the Community Network in the Indigenous communities of the Amazon region.

I am commenting on the Community Networks. When we talk about the Community Networks, it is necessary to not only talk about the implementation part and other issues, but also about what actions are being taken to be certain that digital inclusion is applied to avoid digital terrorists and how to teach the community about what opportunities they can have for connective opportunities. Through the 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 happens to the community's Civil Rights.

>> LUCA BELLI: If you want, we can have another one and then we will respond.

>> Yes, one question you already know. But, two things. One is, I have been talking to people who have certain ideas of digital sovereignty. One of my friends was a researcher who once worked with us in some European countries and said, you know, we are to be digitally sovereign, so we can't cooperate very closely. Does this ring a bell for you?

Did you understand? Okay. So, when you collaborate with somebody on technology, there is this flag going on, like we have to be digitally sovereign. So, thereafter, 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.

The second one is, there are a lot of communities, amazing sessions, but I don't know a representation of who they are.

We cannot have communities that can talk about connecting to Zoom or YouTube. Who are they? What are they doing with the Community Networks, right? We want to understand how they are participants, a community in the network for the services, okay?

And I can go on about that, but, again, Luca, web. You can bring all the Internet that you want but without the web in the community, you are just bringing connecting Zoom, YouTube, something else. And still talking about Digital Sovereignty. We have to think about this. Thank you.

>> LUCA BELLI: Okay. I think we might have several reactions here. Who wants to go first.

>> CARLOS BACA: Thank you, because these questions I think are special, no? We can't talk about all the things that we learn and we know, no? Because there are very long processes. And I used to say that, actually, that is why capacity‑building, I think is key in this process, no? Because if we think the sovereignty or digital autonomy or technological autonomy as black and white, we are in a bad way, I think.

Also, we think it is a place which we will stay and we will have all the autonomy in our life, and we will be very happy because we have autonomy. It is also a bad way, I think, to understand it.

But if we understand it as a process in which the communities have enough information to make good decisions, decisions we think are better for us, we are in a good way.

So, we want to think, at least in Latin America, if technological autonomy, the process of taking decisions by us, but with all the information that we need to know.

So, if the wider community understand that, and they still need to use Zoom, because it is better, the signal ‑‑ I don't know ‑‑ whatever they want, but they understand what they are doing, or Facebook, whatever. No? They understand what they are doing, no? And the risk they have. It is better, because if not, you have this is connected or disconnected.

In one of the conferences yesterday, someone said we need to escape from the idea that it is better stage of the connectivity, or no connectivity.

And there is a lot of gray scale, I think, and the important thing is that the communities have the understanding of what is happening, no? And what implies to use one of the different technologies, and then how we can, you know, how they can have the environment to develop the projects they want to develop, no? So, I think this is key.

Another thing about the violence, it is very difficult, no? On the one hand we have in Africa with Africa and Kenya, we have Community Networks that are in you are Juan areas, no? Very good Community Networks like the Internet, no? Or like in Capetown. And understand, in our students in Mexico, I know this is a reality in Mexico. We go 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 we need ‑‑ they are part of the environment, and it is very difficult. It doesn't mean that we need to stay at the same table with them, but we know that they are behind all the discussion in the communities, and we need to know that.

It is very difficult. It is very difficult. They have, like a big trucks with a lot of the Internet is.

The Internet and the telephone, so they have a lot of technology.

This is not community. This is the national network, yes.

>> How was the negotiation, how would you approach them?

>> CARLOS BACA: I don't know. In one of the meetings we had, there are like two minds, you know? And then they are very quiet, and they go out and some people say that, they are looking, whether you mean ‑‑ no. Because they want also a network for their home. They still need communication for their daily life.

>> That is very interesting.

>> CARLOS BACA: They want, the children connected, for school, too. They actually in some places help to develop infrastructure. It is very complex, no? We know in the communities we don't need to stay with them and talk with them, but they are part of the conversation of the decision‑making.

>> It is a starting‑point of the negotiation, the personal interest.

>> CARLOS BACA: To know they are there, this is relevant, no?

>> RAQUEL GATTO: Very good. I will speak small in Portuguese.

(Speaking non‑English language).

Anyway, thank you. We need to bring the meaningful access. We tackle the meaningful access. It is not only bringing the connection, but the whole environment that is connected, that someone is connected to. And the scales involved in that, be equipment, but also the local public environment.

I think, what you brought in the sense of one into the ‑‑ sorry, a hearing environment ‑‑ no, rural environment. Let's change the wording that is difficult. And in a non‑rural environment. Well, first it is a myth that only, right, remote and rural areas have problems. It is important to bring that, that we have those islands even in the cities.

That also raises the Indigenous community and islands part. How important it is to have the local voices heard. Because there are different challenges, and it is okay. But first you need to have a space where automatic openly share that, and at least look for someone that is having the same problem, or that has addressed this problem, and try to get some input on how you can bring to solutions.

But, also, it is important if you think about how to scale that. Because there are many that are facing the same problem, so how are we going to find a longstanding solution, a more sustainable solution in the future?

So, that is my first point, connecting, you know, all the dots and all the experiences and having the places where this can be done, it is the first step.

And then I am not going into the trade ops and the digital concept in full, but I think it is a good alert that Carlos said in terms of, I think the major concern is the tradeoffs 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 is just a matter of how well is this understood, and how does this advertise in terms of being Community Network‑driven or not.

So, I would put it in that sense.

>> LUCA BELLI: I want to make one 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 we have in the world. So, there could be criminality in a given area, but that is not something that sadly can be solved with the Community Networks. It is not the task of the Community Networks to deal with war lords or drug lords.

So, the Community Network can help. They are a good community solution to solve the problem because they bring culture to people, they bring communication to people.

There is, you as a Brazilian communicator, I am sure you are very well ‑‑ Juan Paul low used to say education doesn't change the world. Education changes the people and then changes the world. You need to have a similar approach to connectivity. It does not change the world. It can change the people and then the people will change the world.

So, if you think the Community Network is the silver bullet that will solve all the problems, I am sorry, but you will be disappointed. But it is an alternative solution to bridge the gap that are evidence in the classic traditional connectivity solutions in the State markets.

Whether it be rural, or other areas that are not connected, or in cities that are not connected, they are also called market failure areas. It is a technical term called market failures. There is no interest in connecting them, so you don't get a return on investment.

Some of them may also be State failure areas. Because the State for various reasons has abandoned those areas. But we don't know ‑‑ no area is without ‑‑ no community is without rules. So, when the State is not ruling, someone else is ruling and that is a problem I think the State should solve, not really the Community Networks. But the Community Networks are a good complimentary solution to expand connectivity.

You wanted to say something?

>> This is not a question, but a point of observation and also experience. 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 could be community‑oriented, so on and so forth.

The second point is that's GSM comes, or the Internet itself reaches you in terms of access, Community Network gets challenged, and they are either closed 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 code is that the best Community Network practice may have become an ISP in the local area, like guifi or Rhizomatica, others I may not know.

So, is coming forward, the first 15 years the internet was looked up to. Now we are in fear of the Internet. We are fearful of the Internet, because there are more bads coming to you, or you have to go through the bads to get the good out of it.

And therefore, can the Community Network become an alternative commune in itself, in other words, the Intranet. Can it become an Intranet and connect to the Internet only when we want, or something like that.

Is there some practice like that, or is there something ‑‑ I mean, since you document a lot, this is something very important that we need to discuss, can Community Networks, not in the technically term, not an alternative of ISP, alternative to access, but to create your own community, gated community ‑‑ that could be the wrong word, but whatever, you can safeguard yourself, run on your own, even if you have Intel, or whatever, I don't want it. I want to plug in and plug off if somebody wants, because of this.

And this is something that we need to discuss, because not only one‑third of the world is yet to be connected. Are we looking at the Community Network as an alternative to connect the one‑third of the world or safeguard those already connected, is the question.

>> ANIL: Thank you for the question. You are pointing out in a good direction. I think it is beyond connectivity and access. When we talk about a future of Community Networks and is Intranet approach to have local services. This is really something, or where there can be a difference.

To start at the other end, what does meaningful connectivity mean at the community level? And also during the IGF, we have seen 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? It can be very, very different if you look at the rural offer the urban community, and then to another one. There are so many different factors.

So, only if you take into account this, I think it is possible to re‑think. 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 important ‑‑ the services of importance for communities. Again, it can be different. It can be cultural services, educational ones, or content creation.

But there are things there that can be done in a complimentary way, alternative way, whatever the framing. But you are right. If it is only about connectivity, the provider has a business model that comes at a community at some point, so, this collective effort could be undone. Yes.

>> RAQUEL GATTO: I can take it quickly. If we take the question of the community network becoming a Internet Service Provider or not, we are in a good place. That means that the Community Network has grown and evolved to the place it is an ISP.

Anyway, I am not going into the nitty‑gritty of it should be one or not.

I think there are other regulatory discussions that need to ‑‑ that might change in some places where we are looking for more of the social license for Community Networks as an alternative provider, and do not confuse with the traditional Internet Service Provider.

Anyway, as you can see, while I am a lawyer, nobody is perfect ‑‑ (Chuckles) ‑‑ you know, regulatory and process environment, I would just put a caution on the examples you were mentioning. Like, oh then it becomes the Internet Service Provider and perhaps then it is the accountant providers and the consolidation of 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 is community‑driven.

The problem is when this package has community or something for the community, but it is really a top‑down and something that is not, you know, their will and not their self‑determination. So that is just the risk for this consolidation that you have been outlining. Thank you.

>> LUCA BELLI: I want to add, and with the Digital Sovereignty debate, it is a two‑fold dimension. On the one happened, 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 is a success, because it became exactly, starting from scratch, it became exactly like the big telco but without being a big telco, 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.

Understand, if there are some ‑‑ we have also documented over the past years, there are Community Networks where there, as someone was mentioning, basically Intranet. And the local communities, that is another element of their sovereignty. If their choice so to create a local network, to share information, have their own platforms to trade services, for instance 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 is an expression of Digital Sovereignty, because the local communities, people willingly understanding what technology means, building it and using it for what they want.

If they choose not to communicate with you, I am sorry for you, but it is their choice. Carlos, you had a question, a comment? No. Okay.

The last five minutes. Sir, you have a question or comment? Okay.

So, to conclude, simply, I want to stress that we really have to consider the self‑determination element of it, which is being the master of your own digital destiny. Meaning, you understand what you are dealing with, and craft a plan to watch, to succeed in your aspiration. Then if your aspiration is becoming, having a local ISP that works like Telephonica in terms of quality and survive in the economic environment, I would say you are successful. We can disagree, but I think that is not a failure. On the contrary, it can be seen as a Z. Please, Carlos.

>> Thank you very much, Luca. We are talking about the review, the IGF, what is the impact of the IGF and the Commission and connectivity, I think has shown over the years the outputs, the discussions, how much value there is in holding these types of conversations.

Second, I want to speak on behalf ‑‑ I am not them, but Ricardo supposed to be speaking with us on connectivity issues not with us, he is a member of the initiative.

. He was touching on some of the elements talked about. They are working on collaborating with another member with a project on doing, bringing meaning to the community around a spill of oil in the (?) area where the communities are based and monetary and air pollution devices, bringing value to the services to the Internet that they hunt.

The thing is by doing that project, they also realize the connectivity they were having from the mobile operators was not enough, so they went and set up, in the last year, actually ‑‑ it wasn't one of the pioneers on this movement. They just started less than 10 months ago in the community areas where they work, city and science can be done, having 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 of the services and using the digital platforms and solutions for solving the issues they were having and touching upon the problems they are facing around, you know, air quality and pollution of oil.

And, you know, it was ‑‑ their challenge. Using those type of tools to actually bring the community together and solve, as well, the connectivity issues. Anyway, I wish he was here and could speak on behalf of the project they are doing. Thank you.

(Speaking off microphone)

>> LUCA BELLI: We have an announcement there will be another talk this afternoon. I am sorry, I have to fly right after this lunch, but I am sure that I will watch 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 the environment association initiative. If you want even more ideas, don't forget to have your complimentary copies of the report of this year. They are here for free. If you want, please have as many as you want. Thank you very much.