> Dear all,
>
> Please find my review of
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployment
> s-03.txt below. This is my first IRSG review, so please bear with me.
>
> I mostly followed https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5743#section-2.2
> and academic review practices, but please let me know where I might 
> have misstepped.
>
> I hope this is useful.
>
> 0.
> The topic of the draft is very relevant and timely and brings together 
> many different angles that are needed to address the multidisciplinary 
> nature of access, the Internet, and community owned networks.

[JS] Nothing to add.


>
> 1.
> The issue of the digital divide is approached from a 'development 
> studies' paradigm (e.g. developing countries), quite some scientific 
> literature has been published about this topic. Most current 
> literature acknowledges that for instance term 'developing country' is 
> problematic because it assumes that all countries are on a similar 
> trajectory, from 'underdeveloped' to 'western'. Empirical data shows 
> that this is not the case. More accurate would be to address 
> differential developmental trajectories by referring to the Global 
> North vs. the Global South, or using other frames.
>
> Also terms like 'Digital Divide', 'Data Revolution', 'Information 
> Society' as well as the 'WSIS process' have been dissected, discussed 
> and interpreted in quite a variety of ways. it might be good to engage 
> with the literature on this if you would like to use these terms, and 
> if so, refer to the relevant sources.
>
> Same is true for the method or model of knowledge transfer that is 
> mentioned in the draft. At several places it is implied that knowledge 
> travels from North to South and from Urban to Rural, which might be a 
> one dimensional way of representing a quite multifaceted process of 
> technology appropriation and development.
>
> In terms of methodology: you are clearly coming at this problem from a 
> multidisciplinary approach. Which is great, considering the 
> multidisciplinary nature of the Internet and the problem you are 
> addressing. However, if you do decide to use concepts from different 
> fields and disciplines (like for instance urban and rural from urban 
> planning, demand and provision from economics or the digital divide 
> from
> sociology) it is important to make this explicit. I would suggest 
> adding a sub-section in which you explain how you built your 
> multidisciplinary research method and why you use the concepts you applied.

[JS] I think we have avoided many of these problems. We have also included the glossary.


>
> 2.
> There is a lot of doubling between abstract and introduction. I 
> recommend reducing the abstract.

[JS] This has been fixed.


>
> 3.
> The discussion under point 1. and 2. is maybe not necessary for 
> achieving the goal of providing a a taxonomy of alternative network 
> deployments. However, Maybe the first part could be shorter.
[JS] This has been fixed, IMHO.

>
> 4.
> It could perhaps be interesting to provide some additional information 
> on actual alternative network deployments, perhaps by providing some 
> case studies and, on the basis of these, a set of best practices / 
> recommendations for specific situations.
[JS] We discussed this by e-mail, and it seems it is ok.

>
> In the attached file more inline editorial comments and suggestions 
> are provided.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels