Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- international-organisations:start [2021/08/30 09:01] – [ITU-D] carlos
+++ international-organisations:start [2021/08/30 13:13] – Added APC's contributions to the 15th CWG-Internet open consultation, and 6th WTPF21 IEG meeting, reports from the Study Group 2017-2021 cycle favorable to community networks, and UNESCAP/ISOC event for CNS in Asia-Pacific carlos
@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
   - Specific consultation and report about CNs at the [[start#cwg-internet | CWG-Internet]].
   - Inclusion of CNs in the preparatory documents for [[start#wtdc-21 | WTDC-21]] as well as in the draft Action Plan for some regions.
+  - The final versions of the reports of the [[start#itu-d_study_groups | 2017-2021 cycle for Questions 1/1 and Question 5/1]] incorporate several mentions to CNs, highlighting as part of the lessons learned during the cycle how they can contribute to close the digital divide.
 ====== Global Organizations ======
@@ Line 203: / Line 206: @@
   * The Annual Deliverable 2019-2020 from ITU-D Study Groups Question 5/1((https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/oth/07/23/D07230000020001PDFE.pdf)) includes "//the following recommendations can be made for now: [...] Ease regulatory requirements for community network operators//".
-  * In the "//Working document - Draft Final Report for ITU-D Question 5/1//" presented at the September 2020 session ((https://www.itu.int/md/D18-SG01.RGQ-C-0321/en)), the document contained several references to Community Networks, in particular:
-    * Section "//6.2 - Community Networks and village connectivity//",
-    * Section "//6.4 - Strategies to promote small, non-profit community operators//", and
-    * Section "//9.2 - Recommendations//", that contains the following text: "//It is important for an optimum mix of licensing models should be used for connecting rural and remote areas. The mix can include [...] the community network model, where small and medium operators are run by local entrepreneurs or cooperation or groups//"
   * Brazil's delegation submission to September 2019 also mentioned community networks ((https://www.itu.int/md/d18-sg01.rgq-c-0195))
   * Côte d'Ivoire submission to the September 2019 meeting ((https://www.itu.int/md/d18-sg01.rgq-c-0213)) highlights the Lomé (Togo) workshop organized by the West African Regulators Association (WATRA), APC and ISOC from 26 to 28 June 2019, where policy makers and Telecommunication/ICT Regulatory Authorities, discussed the need to consider community networks as a viable form of connectivity. The participants at this workshop call for reflection at the international level through the ITU for a more global response to this concept.
+In August 2021 the final report of Question 5/1 was released. It contains plenty of references to the contributions aboove throughout the text. Mainly the third lesson learned in the executive summary {{:international-organisations:telecoms-icts_for_rural_and_remote_areas_2021.pdf | reads}}:
+<callout> "Community networks are an important part of connectivity ecosystems, and they help bridge the digital divide". </callout>
+Additionally:
+    * Section "//6.2 - Complementary access and village connectivity networks//",
+    * Section "//6.4 - Strategies to promote small complementary operators//",
+    * Section "//9.1.4 - Conclusions about Financing mechanisms//", that contains the following text: "//Community networks are one of the options available to meet current Internet connectivity challenges, and the logistics and administration of community networks are less expensive because of their scale and local nature. They can also be sustainable as they frequently make use of renewable energy such as solar power//"; and
+    * Section "//9.2 - Guidelines for Member States//", that contains the following text: "//It is important for an optimum mix of licensing models should be used for connecting rural and remote areas. The mix can include [...] the community network model, where small and medium operators are run by local entrepreneurs or cooperation or groups//"
+Part of the inclusion of this wording in the document was due to contributions to earlier versions of the document that were made available for consultation like the "//Working document - Draft Final Report for ITU-D Question 5/1//" presented at the September 2020 session ((https://www.itu.int/md/D18-SG01.RGQ-C-0321/en)).
 === Global Symposium for Regulators (GSR) ===
@@ Line 386: / Line 395: @@
 ==== UNESCAP ====
-In Asia Pacific, community networks are a relatively new topic. Still, they were discussed in 2019 at the Third Session of the Asia-Pacific Information Superhighway Steering Committee and WSIS Regional Review and included in its deliberations((https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Summary%20Report%20-%20Third%20AP-IS%20SC_0.pdf)).
+In Asia Pacific, community networks are a relatively new topic. Still, they were discussed in 2019 at the Third Session of the Asia-Pacific Information Superhighway Steering Committee and WSIS Regional Review, in an event organized by ISOC and UNESCAP and included in its deliberations((https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/Summary%20Report%20-%20Third%20AP-IS%20SC_0.pdf)).
+On the 18th August 2021, a second edition of the event were community networks were discussed took place ((https://unescap.org/events/2021/asia-pacific-regional-community-networks-summit-2021-innovating-policymaking-connect)). The final documents of the summit are still being produced, but draft versions incorporate very positive language about the role that community networks can play in the region.