Great comments Garth. I think, in part 2,  you are echoing our comments to the Canadian Stakeholders Vision for WSIS+20 -- that community infrastructure is enabling. If any dialogue actually happens, we can refer back to this, which is an official statement created through ISEDs Informal Stakeholder discussions. Definitions tend to tie processes up forever. And it is always hoped that the definition will evolve from the practice. Backwards, I know.

From the Vision document:

Indigenous Connectivity and Community Networks

Stakeholders see development efforts to make the Information Society accessible and inclusive as being at the heart of WSIS. Stakeholders emphasized that Indigenous connectivity and community networks are critical to close Internet access digital divides in Canada and globally. When connectivity is available, everyone can benefit from the Information Society. Canadian stakeholders identified the following priorities for the WSIS+20 Review:

• Advocate for the inclusion of text related to connecting the unconnected, particularly Indigenous communities in Canada and around the world.

• Emphasize the importance of community internet infrastructure and community decision-making processes in creating an enabling environment to connect the unconnected (directly related to WSIS Action Line 6).

• Consider how to incorporate the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into both WSIS+20 negotiations and national policies.

I have asked Ian to add the full document to our website as another indication of our activities in this area.

Marita

I too think we should sign this.  But I see a couple of things from Telecommunities Canada’s perspective that aren’t there. However, if we are on board in provoking a national dialogue, then it may give us an opportunity to raise these issues.

 1.     The definition of “digital governance” isn’t obvious, although it seems to be focussed on addressing policy and problems of digital infrastructure.  In the context of a digital society and economy, that focus on infrastructure is certainly necessary, but not sufficient. For example, the Internet’s existence fosters open and distributed systems that self-organize, and the development of AI depends on the continuation of the Internet’s functional integrity. The goal of defining digital governance in a way that moves us towards an open society is absent from this letter.  The current international preoccupation with Internet governance could broaden the perception of how digital governance needs to be defined.

 2.     I’m pretty sure that the phrase “localization measures” does not mean digital sovereignty at the local and municipal level. But creating a context where local ownership and control of community networks can emerge (i.e. a distributed rather than delegated social structure such as is being created through autonomy in Fist Nations governance) requires an awareness of that emphasis.

On Aug 27, 2025, at 4:44 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:

Hello Advisors. I am seeking your permission to have TC sign on to this letter to PM Carney to strengthen Canada's digital policy agenda. Among other things, it is seeking a public dialogue and public consultation on digital policy -- something we have always supported and participated in over the years. Please let me know ASAP. Deadline is Sept. 29.
Thanks

Marita


-------- Forwarded Message --------Subject: Please sign this open letter to PM Carney - Strengthen Canada’s Digital Policy Agenda and Sovereignty.
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 14:38:03 +0000
From: Andrew Clement <andrew.clement@utoronto.ca>
To: Bill Hearn <bill@hearnlaw.ca>

Hello,

I'm writing to ask for your support for an open letter calling on PM Carney to Strengthen Canada’s Digital Policy Agenda and Sovereignty, to be submitted to the PM and a large number of others in early September.