Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments

Thank you very much, Niels!

We will take your comments into account in order to build an improved version of the draft.

Best regards,

Jose

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Mat Ford
> Enviado el: lunes, 01 de febrero de 2016 13:27
> Para: Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org>; draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-
> deployments@ietf.org
> CC: gaia <gaia@irtf.org>; Internet Research Steering Group <irsg@irtf.org>
> Asunto: Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-
> deployments
> 
> Thanks very much for the detailed review Niels, it is valuable.
> 
> Authors - please discuss how you would like to address these comments and let
> Niels and myself know. If there is a need for further discussion, please let’s keep
> that on gaia@irtf.org.
> 
> Mat
> 
> > On 30 Jan 2016, at 23:35, Niels ten Oever <niels@article19.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 2.
> > There is a lot of doubling between abstract and introduction. I
> > recommend reducing the abstract.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > In the attached file more inline editorial comments and suggestions
> > are provided.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Niels
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Niels ten Oever
> > Head of Digital
> >
> > Article 19
> > www.article19.org
> >
> > PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> >                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> >
> >
> > Niels ten Oever
> > Head of Digital
> >
> > Article 19
> > www.article19.org
> >
> > PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
> >                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> >
> > On 01/14/2016 12:39 PM, Mat Ford wrote:
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> The GAIA RG has successfully concluded an RG Last Call for the
> >> document
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network
> >>> -deployments/
> >>
> >> As document shepherd I’m now looking for someone from the IRSG to review
> the document. Any volunteers?
> >>
> >> If no one volunteers, Lisandro Granville is top of the list:
> >> https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/IRSGReviewLog
> >>
> >> Mat
> >>
> > <draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-03 edit NtO.txt>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia