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
On 2025-08-28 5:40 p.m., Garth Graham wrote:
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(a)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(a)utoronto.ca>
> To: Bill Hearn <bill(a)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.