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

[panayotis antoniadis <[e-mail]>]

On 14/04/16 11:03, Jose Saldana wrote:
> This is a good point.
>
> These would be goals (why the network is useful, what is its main
> "service"):
>
> We can split the list into two, with different introductory paragraphs. We
> should take into account that these motivations are used in the
> classification.
>
> Something like:
>
> Alternative Networks can also be classified according to the underlying
> motivation
> for them, i.e. the goals it tries to accomplish:
> [...]
> Do you agree with the separation?

Yes, I think that the separation is necessary and especially for the 
case of
"motivations", in case you think it is really important to include them, 
I would
be at least careful with the phrasing and add some references. Having read
most of the literature on this topic I will try to polish this part and 
make a
concrete proposal (next week).




>
> Jose
>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: gaia [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de panayotis antoniadis
>> Enviado el: jueves, 14 de abril de 2016 10:51
>> Para: [e-mail]
>> Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar
> review,
>> question #1: Motivations
>>
>>
>> Dear Mitar, Jose,
>>
>> I am not sure if it is meaningful, and helpful, to mix goals (why the
> network is useful,
>> what is its main "service") with motivations (why someone contributes to
> the
>> creation of the network) in the same list.
>>
>> The former I think is a useful classification variable and more or less
> easy to
>> identify. The latter is a rather complex behavioural aspect and in my
> opinion it is
>> really beyond of the scope of this document to touch on.
>>
>> Asking someone "what is your motivation?" and recording the answer is just
> not
>> enough. Motivations shouldn't be treated similarly to protocol variables
> and unless if
>> there is a really good reason I wouldn't place them side by side.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Panos.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14/04/16 09:52, Mitar wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:33 AM, Jose Saldana <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>>>>> - Various forms of activism, looking for network neutrality
>>>>>     guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control,
>>>>>     building of commons, etc.
>>>> When you say "building of commons", do you mean "Digital commons"
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons#Digital_commons .
>>> Various forms of commons, but mostly commons in the sense of Internet
>>> connectivity. If we see Internet connectivity as a human right, then
>>> commons is a social way to provide that. Like drinking water can be
>>> seen as commons, public spaces as well. It is commons to access
>>> digital commons. :-) The network itself becomes a virtual public space
>>> where people can participate without censorship, oppression. So
>>> commons in very broad term. It is really the best term I can find to
>>> explain various aspects of community networks.
>>>
>>> For example, we can see the infrastructure put up by community
>>> networks as commons. Not owned by any one particular entity, but
>>> operated and maintained by a community.
>>>
>>> This research paper talks more about this view on community networks:
>>>
>>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2725358
>>>
>>> (It talks also about organizational structures and motivations for
>>> such networks.)
>>>
>>>> - Various forms of activism, looking for network neutrality
>>>> guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control,
>>>> creating and sharing of "commons"  (i.e. information and knowledge
>>>> resources that are collectively shared), etc.
>>> But also infrastructure, the network itself as communication space,
>>> and control is often similar to other commons-based projects (open
>>> source projects, etc.).
>>>
>>>> 4.2.  Goals and motivation
>>>>
>>>>      Alternative Networks can also be classified according to the
>>>>      underlying motivation for them, e.g., addressing deployment and
> usage
>>>>      hurdles:
>>>>
>>>>      o  Reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the
> end
>>>>         user, or both).
>>>>
>>>>      o  Providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional
>>>>         carrier-based financing).
>>>>
>>>>      o  Reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or network
>>>>         administration).
>>>>
>>>>      o  Leveraging expertise, and having a place for experimentation and
>>>>         teaching.
>>>>
>>>>      o  Reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy in
>>>>         general; relevance, etc.)
>>>>
>>>>      o  Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and communities).
>>>>
>>>>      o  Free sharing of Internet connectivity, including altruistic
>>>>         reasons.
>>>>
>>>>      o  Becoming an active participant in the deployment and management
> of
>>>>         a real and operational network.
>>>>
>>>>      o  Various forms of activism, looking for network neutrality
>>>>         guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize
> control,
>>>>         creating and sharing of "commons" (i.e. information and
> knowledge
>>>>         resources that are collectively shared), etc.
>>>>
>>>>      o  Providing an alternative service in case of natural disasters
> and
>>>>         other extreme situations.
>>>>
>>>>      o  Preferring alternative ownership model (co-owning, co-operating)
>>>>         of the networking infrastructure.
>>> Looks better and better. Great! Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>> Mitar
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gaia mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia