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

[panayotis antoniadis <[e-mail]>]

On 14/04/16 11:30, Mitar wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Hm, I think this is hard to separate. Because is goal of providing a
> decentralized censorship-free government-free alternative Internet
> access a service or a motivation of people participating?

I would put this in "goals". Aspiring to the goal could be of course
one of the motivations, but for example "altruism" or "gaining
technical expertise" are "personal" motivations difficult to
identify clearly. And trying to do so, one steps into issues
of human behaviour, social psychology, etc.

I really don't see why these belong to this document.



>
>
> Mitar
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Jose Saldana <[e-mail]> 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:
>>
>>>>>      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  Reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy in
>>>>>         general; relevance, etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>>      o  Extending coverage to underserved areas (users and communities).
>>>>>
>>>>>      o  Providing an alternative service in case of natural disasters
>> and
>>>>>         other extreme situations.
>> The motivations of the users who deploy them can be diverse:
>>>>>      o  Leveraging expertise, and having a place for experimentation and
>>>>>         teaching.
>>>>>      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  Free sharing of Internet connectivity, including altruistic
>>>>>         reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>>      o  Preferring alternative ownership model (co-owning, co-operating)
>>>>>         of the networking infrastructure.
>> Do you agree with the separation?
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> gaia mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>
>