Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #1: Motivations

Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com> Thu, 14 April 2016 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <mmitar@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00BEE12DAB2 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g-t07utueBrA for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x244.google.com (mail-ig0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90ED712DA16 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ig0-x244.google.com with SMTP id fn8so82085igb.2 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=W0eFrBHs0ugkCH+1YR6DWdguLM9sSX8eYjyMGvStZUs=; b=Y5Mdmz+C056v3tklPPQe1eSJt/NDHBUVCdMUXQtbI5jDRqo2D7fQQokLT+Qo9jer8y UMgXy3wcY/ZDfTLxp37nOUVC5j9/hhbTvaSALpwROd1jib4eQxJD3TeZgUCdPQLYCgou nXER1T4uKrjFHIK6JEfQYOAIo7yDB/AjE7GhW+ksPWq3FeJmm2EmCFGQI5rrrIZlzA73 Dk7dXjrTEz4S+zKiaV8k39CmRfgoQi+A5soDC2kmpyOTu8QuTEXrASBzl7TTBTcLJmiG co0V0QMRZbw7vLjHyzWuqaZHPgmy3SaUcub8zSzIaX44yfh6sYlKjIuVq+H2PlhgZl+r HgXA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=W0eFrBHs0ugkCH+1YR6DWdguLM9sSX8eYjyMGvStZUs=; b=Tm5bninR5dekLEdu/LdkUmVc3kADsWKXkeLeq7OjI1cZGbRqllb3EXmW82KAcukTAP dYgHJiA8tjdU81OIV7PAQyN5TWxCIjlSLmQU+D4e/sZuy0OJTZMKAfvqYA2ydY/K3ClN cnym/pefygAtgbaa0/6yJsRiLHJXR4T/AQr2thFSOTXksbG5aYre6I4F7hgq9+tK3pnj qmOGvWdM1ur2Sv3swoFxnGXmOMyw2RF++iGe6WJpdpOuHGow6Vhvpsq0eeRJtoFDBoJv eKv3B8SKLfGMUy1jmYC1l1UUnzn+uOE9pvNZ1pVt3AKWwMa4P4EFckVuQ4+JG0t6ydPk Ttig==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWhVqs4e0riqeU1TuBESMPf5OIEtfpg9sSPFlipF/zFCOvinxylC2bKfBQIN4Aithz6qwiwA7EzHbq2oA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.92.41 with SMTP id cj9mr154458igb.38.1460659042903; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.146.131 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <570F6741.1060205@guifi.net>
References: <005601d194c4$c7894ce0$569be6a0$@unizar.es> <CAKLmikP89VbsLXfBKcUYSODW2O0BDTB7yoeR9ybMjhsjC5xpuA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKLmikOv-TQpxHh9EsLJMzu7Ets7G1rAeex3o+odkjDGi0yqsA@mail.gmail.com> <00bf01d19599$c588b220$509a1660$@unizar.es> <CAKLmikPTrzMTUEpDH_=mscA_ducWfh+GUD7iGY8vYXxJHYq0yg@mail.gmail.com> <570F6741.1060205@guifi.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:37:22 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKLmikM1KdnAwnGRuTgT_TagU8F729--Fpmk-634t7mRLYVaGA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mitar <mmitar@gmail.com>
To: Roger Baig Viñas <roger.baig@guifi.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/3UN776BDqu7SnVz5svv2bj14puQ>
Cc: gaia <gaia@irtf.org>, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #1: Motivations
X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <gaia.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gaia/>
List-Post: <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:37:26 -0000

Hi!

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:47 AM, Roger Baig Viñas <roger.baig@guifi.net> wrote:
> "Guifi.net's infrastructure is managed as a “commons”: it is legally owned
> and commercially run by a non­profit foundation (on behalf of its users)."
>
> is not true:
>
> 1) the contributor keeps the ownership rights over the contributions
> made, so, he/she/it (e.g. public admins., enterprises, etc.) can keep
> the ownership or he/she/it can donate them to the Foundation (this has
> become the preferred/recommended practice by the Foundation as is the
> best way to ensure that these contributions will never be removed from
> the common pool resource) among any other actions the holder of the
> ownership rights is permitted to take by law.
>
> 2) commercial activity is essentially done by ISPs (we call them "the
> professionals")

Hm, I do not see this conflicting at all? This is more or less what I
was proposing to be said about community networks and ownership: that
people own it, or they donate it to the network as it is.

This forms a commons which is cooperatively managed.

But I agree that the snippet from the paper looks more like the only
way to do it is by donating it to the Foundation. And I agree that
"commercially run" might not the right choice of words there. But
"commercially" does not necessary mean for-profit. It can also mean in
the scope of this document that the Foundation is one behind the
"commercial model / promoter".

Anyway, I did not reference this paper as a paper which describes
everything correctly (as you might noticed, that is a really hard
process) and we should cite for descriptions of the networks, but as
an example of analysis that what community networks are build can be
seen as commons. If a particular network does or does not see what
they are doing as commons is a separate question. I do know that we
see it as such in wlan slovenija. And that this paper talks about how
you can see it as such and explain what commons would in this context
mean.


Mitar

-- 
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m