Re: [gaia] Current version of the Alternative Networks draft

["Jose Saldana" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

The current version loosely talks about this in different places (although
not using the word "governance"):

a) In the definition. It is one of the characteristics:

   o  Users in alternative networks may participate in the network
      design, deployment, operation and maintenance.


b) When talking about the "administrative model"

4.3.  Administrative model

   o  Centralized, where a single authority (e.g. a company, a public
      stakeholder) plans and manages the network.

   o  Non-centralized, i.e. the network is managed following a
      distributed approach, in which a whole community may participate.
      The network may also grow according to the fact of new users
      joining it, but not following a plan.


c) When talking about Community Networks:

   o  Knowledge about building and maintaining the network and ownership
      of the network itself is non-centralized and open.  Different
      degrees of centralization can be found in Community Networks.  In
      some of them, a shared platform (e.g. a web site) may exist where
      a minimum coordination is performed.  Community members with the
      right permissions have an obvious and direct form of
      organizational control over the overall organization of the
      network (e.g.  IP addresses, routing, etc.) in their community
      (not just their own participation in the network).


So the word "governance" seems to be adequate, and I see no problem on using
it in the places suggested by Panayotis (see my previous e-mail).



Best regards,

Jose 

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Francesco Amorosa [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Enviado el: lunes, 25 de abril de 2016 12:41
> Para: panayotis antoniadis <[e-mail]>; Jose Saldana
> <[e-mail]>
> CC: [e-mail]
> Asunto: Re: [gaia] Current version of the Alternative Networks draft
> 
> Dear all,
> the word *governance* seems really relevant in "alternative" networks
context.
> 
> It expresses the will and the ambition of a territory (a small or wide
area with its
> population) and marks a substantial difference between the Alternative
Networks
> and the others, whose governance (and strategy, evolution plans, coverage
> extensions, ...) are determined elsewhere, often exclusively on the basis
of the
> market short-term perspectives.
> 
> I believe we need to introduce the concept of *governance*.
> 
> Best,
> Francesco
> ---
> Il 25/04/2016 02:42, panayotis antoniadis ha scritto:
> >
> > Dear Jose, all
> >
> > Here is the first part of my proposal for the improvement of the
> > draft, up to the end of Section 4 (classification criteria), trying to
> > minimize the suggested changes.
> >
> > I will send the second part a little later depending on how the first
> > part will be received :-)
> >
> >
> >> Abstract
> >
> >> This document presents a taxonomy of a set of "Alternative Network
> >>    Deployments" emerged in the last decade with the aim of bringing
> >>    Internet connectivity to people.
> >
> > "or of providing a local communication infrastructure to serve various
> > complementary needs and objectives"
> >
> > [If the draft would include alternative networks with other objectives
> > than
> > providing Internet access this should be reflected in the abstract.]
> >
> >> topologies different from those of mainstream networks, and rely on
> >>    alternative business models.
> > I would say "alternative business *and governance* models"
> >
> >
> >> 1. Introduction
> >
> >> This term
> >>    includes a set of network access models that have emerged in the
last
> >>    decade with the aim of providing Internet connection, following
> >>    topological, architectural and business models that differ from the
> >>    so-called "mainstream" ones,
> > again, I would add "governance" models
> > 

> >>
> >>    o  Users in mainstream networks do not participate in the network
> >>       design, deployment, operation and maintenance.
> >
> > same here: add "governance"
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 2.  Terms used in this document
> >>
> >>    This document follows a multidisciplinary approach, considering the
> >>    multidisciplinary nature of the Internet and the problems being
> >>    addressed. Therefore, some concepts used in fields and disciplines
> >>    different from networking are being used.
> >
> > I would replace the above with the following [I don't think that it
> > "follows a multidisciplinary approach" since there are not other
> > disciplines really represented in the whole approach other than
> > the clarification of the terminology]:
> >
> > "Considering the central role that the Internet plays today in almost
> > every aspect of our lives, this document touches on complex social,
> > political, and economic issues. Some of the concepts and terminology
> > used have been the subject of study of various disciplines outside the
> > field of networking, and responsible for long debates whose resolution
> > is out of the scope of this document. "
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> 4.1.  Commercial model / promoter
> > The "commercial model" does not sound like a classification variable
> > and the list below is not a list of "commercial models" but different
> > actors involved. The term "promoter" is also very vague. I would
> > call this category simply "actors involved"
> >
> >>
> >>    The entity (or entities) or individuals promoting an Alternative
> >>    Network can be:
> >>
> >>    o  A community of users.
> >>
> >>    o  A public stakeholder.
> >>
> >>    o  A private company.
> >>
> >>    o  Supporters of a crowdshared approach.
> >>
> >>    o  A community that already owns some infrastructure shares it with
> >>       an operator, which uses it for backhauling purposes.
> >>
> >>    o  A research or academic entity.
> >>
> >>    The commercial model may have different implications regarding the
> >>    ownership of the network equipment.  In some cases, each of the
users
> >>    of the community maintains the ownership over the equipment they
have
> >>    contributed, whereas in others there is an entity who owns the
> >>    equipment, or at least a part of it.
> >
> > I would replace the above with the following:
> >
> > "The above actors could play different roles in the design, financing,
> > deployment,
> > governance, and promotion of an alternative network. For example,
> > each of the members of a community network maintains the ownership
> > over the
> > equipment they have contributed, whereas in others there is a single
> > entity,
> > e.g., a private company who owns the equipment, or at least a part of
> > it."
> >
> >
> >>
> >> 4.2.  Goals and motivation
> > I propose to change this classification criteria to "Benefits"
> >>
> >>    Alternative Networks can also be classified according to the
> >>    underlying motivation for them, e.g., addressing deployment and
usage
> >>    hurdles:
> > And change the above as follows:
> >
> > Alternative Networks can be classified according to the benefits that
> > they
> > bring compared to mainstream solutions, regarding economic,
> > technological,
> > social or political objectives. These benefits could be enjoyed mostly
by
> > the actors involved (e.g., lowering costs or gaining technical
> > expertise) or
> > by the society as a whole (e.g., Internet access in underserved areas or
> > network neutrality).
> >
> >
> >>
> >>    o  Free sharing of Internet connectivity, including altruistic
> >>       reasons.
> > I would delete "including altruistic reasons". "Free sharing" sounds
> > altruistic enough :-)
> >
> > And add also:
> >
> > "Community building, social cohesion, quality of life" (example:
> > Redhook Wifi)
> >
> >
> > BUT I still find this section a little confusing. I am not sure though
> > how to simplify
> > it without "losing information". If I was the editor I would include
> > in the classification
> > only the "stated goals" of different networks as presented in their
> > web sites and leave
> > second-order goals and motivations for a "discussion"-like section.
> > They are
> > very important but not really appropriate as classification criteria
> > in my opinion.
> >
> > However, this needs some extra work and personally I don't have the
> > time to do this
> > right now. I could try though if you think it would be useful.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Panayotis.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gaia mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> >
> 
> --
> ---------------------------------
> AFA Systems Srl
> Via G.Pastore
> Zona Industriale B
> 86039 Termoli (CB) - Italia
> tel.: [phone] ext. 221
> fax.: [phone]
> www.afasystems.it
> ---------------------------------