<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Andrew Dul <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andrew.dul@quark.net" target="_blank">andrew.dul@quark.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="m_-8307156708651718136moz-cite-prefix">The current text uses the terms
"volunteer group, not-for-profit, non-profit, charitable
organization, or educational institution" <br>
<br>
My reading of this is that accreditation isn't a requirement. The
text could be rewritten to remove educational institutions, but
some of the community networks one might imagine are educational
organizations (which are government entities, not necessarily
registered/chartered as non-profit organization)</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks, Andrew — it's good to consider not just what structures run community networks today but which could arise in future.</div><div><br></div><div>In my case I worked for a non-government educational organization that ran a community network. I think the current language is open-ended enough while signaling a fairly clear intent.</div><div><br></div></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Jeremy Austin<br>Whitestone, Alaska</div>
</div></div>