Re: [gaia] An Internet Draft about Community Networks. A first question

[Roger Baig Viñas <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Some comments on general aspects:

*Terms*
"Community Networks", specially thanks to CONFINE's contributions [1],
seems to have a rather board consensus. Many of the participants also
feel comfortable with "Free Networks" (term use long before CONFINE) but
the term "free" has been proved to be problematic (free beer vs. free
speech + others). "Network Commons" is a term that sometimes has been
proposed, because what we do is to share our network resources in
commons, but it has been ruled out because of the it is confusing (a
network of commons?). In any case, the terms such "Wireless" must be
avoided because it adds unjustified limitations.

*Technology*
(strictly related with the previous point) We must keep the concept of
"Community Networks" agnostic from the technical point of view.
Technology in this case must be taken as implementation, thus, must not
be part of the specification. Moreover, better if CNs are implemented in
a way that several technologies (Ad-Hoc WiFi, Infrastructure WiFi,
Optical Fibre, IPv4, IPv6, RFC1918, OLSR, BMX6, etc.) coexist. From this
point of view, CNs must be seen as part of the Internet, and in the
Internet the technical specifications are kept as small as possible
(roughly interoperability -BGP- and uniqueness -ASes and IPs).

*Infrastructure vs. contents*
CNs is a specification about how the network infrastructure is build,
maintained and operated. Contents are out of the scope of this
specification (thus, contents must freely circulated in the
infrastructure -as long as they are legitimate, in the sense that they
do not harm the infrastructure functionality).

*Internet connectivity*
At least to guifi.net understanding (and other CNs we know) Inet access
is considered a service, thus, the terms on how it is made available (if
at all) are up to the provider as in any other content (e-mails
accounts, VoIP, etc.)

*Profit*
Business in CNs are not only possible because there are no restrictions
on the contents but they are desirable because they are essential to
make a project sustainable (an ecosystem). Very important (the trait, I
dare say) the working hypothesis of CNs is that the profit can only be
made by services and not by the infrastructure itself because the
infrastructure is neutral, free, and open (traditional ISPs base their
business on the control of the infrastructure)

*proposals of definition*
The following proposals can be used as a starting point.

Free Network Foundation [2] propose the following [3]:
"
Free network definition
  A free network equitably grants the following freedoms to all:
  Freedom 0 - Freedom to communicate for any purpose, without
discrimination, interference, or interception.
  Freedom 1 - The freedom to grow, improve, communicate across, and
connect to the whole network.
  Freedom 2- The freedom to study, use, remix, and share any network
communication mechanisms, in their most reusable forms.
"

In guifi.net we have a license, the XOLN Compact [4] (English
translation is a WiP) that everybody must subscribe to join the network.
The first article says:
""
I) Summary and General principles
  The fundamental principles of the XOLN Compact are:
    -. You have the freedom to use the network for any purpose as long
as you don't harm the operation of the network itself , the rights of
other users, or the principles of neutrality that allow contents and
services to flow without deliberate interference.
    -. You have the right to understand the network, to know its
components, and to spread knowledge of its mechanisms and principles.
    -. You have the right to offer services and content to the network
on your own terms.
    -. You have the right to join the network, and the responsibility to
extend this set of rights to anyone according to these same terms.


[1] http://confine-project.eu/
[2] http://thefnf.org
[3] https://commons.thefnf.org/index.php/Free_network_definition
[4] http://guifi.net/ca/CXOLN

*License*
Although I do not feel in the position (yet?) of stating whether a CNs
must necessarily have a license I can say that at least in guifi.net
everybody agrees in identifying it as one of our success keys.

*Organisations*
All kind of organisations and entities must coexist (associations,
individuals, public administrations, enterprises, etc.). In guifi.net
having a non-profit non-partisan Foundation that has the mandate to take
care of the license and to promote the CN is a very positive experience.

*Ownership*
everybody keeps the ownership of what has contributed.

Regards.

On Wed 18 Jun 2014 10:20:17 PM CEST, Paul M. Aoki wrote:
> some personal views:
>
> (1) i don't believe that the mere involvement of a for-profit element
> in running a network makes it not a "community network."  lots of gray
> areas.  any internet transit will ultimately pass through (and pay) a
> commercial provider.  any paid staff are working for personal benefit
> to a certain degree.
>
> (2) i don't believe that nominal motivations are a helpful
> distinction.  different people have different motivations to do things
> and the motivations are usually poorly defined.  what is access?  is
> building a rural fiber network (where users have copper or wireless)
> "increasing access"?  when a city gives an operator the right to build
> a for-profit network but saddles it with universal service
> obligations, does that make it a community network because it's
> increasing access to a very high fraction of the population?
>
> (2) i don't believe that the sub-L3 network technology is a useful
> categorization.  there are rural community fiber networks (e.g., rural
> UK and DE) as well as rural wireless networks.  (side comment: imo,
> the technical discussion in this draft could mostly be replaced with
> more pointers to WNDW...)
>
> (3) here's a duck-type idea for you folks to criticize: a community
> network is one in which
>
> - community members are directly contributing active network
> infrastructure (not just passive infrastructure), and
> - community members have a obvious and direct form of organizational
> control over the overall operation of the network in their community
> (not just their own participation in the network)
>
> ex: US cable company.  in the US, the cable company is likely
> providing a network that can serve much of your community (high
> fraction of homes passed), and you contribute the coax in your home as
> part of that network if you subscribe.  but coax is passive
> infrastructure, you aren't doing anything other than paying, and you
> are just a customer.
>
> ex: Guifi vs. Fon.  in both cases, users buy a CPE (active
> infrastructure) to join the network.  but Fon, as a conventional
> corporate entity, does not give community members any control other
> than the ability to participate (according to their TOS) or not.  that
> is, the network is controlled by an entity that is not accountable to
> individuals except as customers.
>
> ex: that rural german fiber network, BBNG
> (http://www.thelocal.de/20140601/german-villagers-build-own-broadband-network).
>  it's run by paid staff working for an entity that is funded by
> investors (who are not all local).  BUT its service footprint is such
> that the entity will fail (with complete certainty) if the served
> community stops using it, so it has total commercial accountability to
> the community.
>
> no doubt there are serious problems with this definition, too, but it
> seems to work ok in my head right at the moment...
>
>
>
> On 6/18/2014 11:04 AM, Arjuna Sathiaseelan wrote:
>> Looking through Steve and Dirk's comments again - I think its
>> important for us to address all possible initiatives including profit
>> and wired- but we need to identify a better way of classifying them.
>>
>> If anyone has suggestions - please do so.
>>
>> On 18 June 2014 15:25, Jose Saldana <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We have a first question. We had some doubts about this: should we
>>> include in the draft Networks in which Wi-Fi is shared by
>>> individuals, but they are in fact managed by a company (e.g. FON)?
>>>
>>>>>     There exist other networks, also based on sharing wireless
>>>>> resources
>>>>>     of the users, but not built upon the initiative of the users
>>>>>     themselves, nor owned by them.  The characterization of these
>>>>>     networks is not the objective of this document.
>>>
>>> As you may see, in the current version they are not included, but we
>>> have some doubts...
>>>
>>> Jose
>>>
>>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>>>> De: gaia [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de Jose Saldana
>>>> Enviado el: miércoles, 18 de junio de 2014 16:21
>>>> Para: [e-mail]
>>>> Asunto: [gaia] An Internet Draft about Community Networks
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> After some weeks, we have been able to build an Internet Draft
>>>> about Community
>>>> Networks. At this stage we would like to hear the feedback from
>>>> people in the list.
>>>>
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jose
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>>>>> De: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>>> Enviado
>>>>> el: miércoles, 18 de junio de 2014 16:18
>>>>> Para: Carlos Rey-Moreno; Leandro Navarro; Carlos Rey-Moreno; Andres
>>>>> Arcia- Moret; Marco Zennaro; Arjuna Sathiaseelan; Arjuna
>>>>> Sathiaseelan;
>>>>> Bart Braem; Leandro Navarro; Bart Braem; Jose Saldana; Ermanno
>>>>> Pietrosemoli; Ermanno Pietrosemoli; Jose Saldana; Marco Zennaro;
>>>>> Andres Arcia-Moret
>>>>> Asunto: New Version Notification for
>>>>> draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-
>>>>> 00.txt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-00.txt
>>>>> has been successfully submitted by Jose Saldana and posted to the
>>>>> IETF
>>>>> repository.
>>>>>
>>>>> Name:               draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks
>>>>> Revision:   00
>>>>> Title:              Community Networks. Definition and taxonomy
>>>>> Document date:      2014-06-18
>>>>> Group:              Individual Submission
>>>>> Pages:              23
>>>>> URL:           
>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-
>>>>> networks-00.txt
>>>>> Status:        
>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-
>>>>> networks/
>>>>> Htmlized:      
>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-
>>>> 00
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>     Several communities have developed initiatives to build large
>>>>> scale,
>>>>>     self-organized and decentralized community wireless networks
>>>>> that use
>>>>>     wireless technologies (including long distance) due to the
>>>>> reduced
>>>>>     cost of using the unlicensed spectrum.  This can be motivated by
>>>>>     different causes: Sometimes the reluctance, or the
>>>>> impossibility, of
>>>>>     network operators to provide wired and cellular
>>>>> infrastructures to
>>>>>     rural/remote areas has motivated the rise of these networks. 
>>>>> Some
>>>>>     other times, they are built as a complement and an alternative to
>>>>>     wired Internet access.
>>>>>
>>>>>     These community wireless networks have self sustainable business
>>>>>     models that provide more localised communication services as
>>>>> well as
>>>>>     providing Internet backhaul support through peering agreements
>>>>> with
>>>>>     traditional network operators who see such community led
>>>>> networks as
>>>>>     a way to extend their reach to rural/remote areas at lower cost.
>>>>>
>>>>>     This document defines these networks, summarizes their
>>>>> technological
>>>>>     characteristics and classifies them, also talking about their
>>>>> socio-
>>>>>     economic sustainability models.
>>>>>
>>>>>     There exist other networks, also based on sharing wireless
>>>>> resources
>>>>>     of the users, but not built upon the initiative of the users
>>>>>     themselves, nor owned by them.  The characterization of these
>>>>>     networks is not the objective of this document.
>

-- 
Roger Baig Viñas
Fundació Privada per a la Xarxa Oberta, Lliure i Neutral guifi.net

-- 
Roger Baig Viñas
Fundació Privada per a la Xarxa Oberta, Lliure i Neutral guifi.net