[gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Adding "ownership" as a new category?

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

Hi,

We currently have 5 "axes" in the classification:

1 Commercial model / promoter
2 Goals and motivation
3 Administrative model
4 Technologies employed
5 Typical scenarios

The question is if we add "ownership" of the equipment as a new category, or if it is part of the "Commercial model / promoter" category.

If we add it, we would have to add it in the table at the beginning of each subsection. It is not a big deal.

This could be a possibility:

a) Community networks

Ownership		Usually each user maintains the ownership of the equipment he/she has contributed. It can be donated


b) WISPs

Ownership		the equipment belongs to the company


c) Shared infrastructure

Ownership		the community maintains the ownership of the infrastructure which is being shared


d) Crowdshared approaches

Ownership		the APs creating the shared network belong to their owners


e) Testbeds for research purposes

Ownership		the research entity usually owns the equipment. Users contributing their own hardware is also possible



> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: Mitar [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Enviado el: jueves, 14 de abril de 2016 6:26
> Para: Jose Saldana <[e-mail]>
> CC: gaia <[e-mail]>
> Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review,
> question #4. Classification
> 
> "Hi!
> 
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Jose Saldana <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I think "ownership of equipment" can be seen as a part of the "commercial model /
> promoter". In fact, the text in "Commerical model / promoter" already talks about
> ownership: " A community that already *owns* some infrastructure shares it with an
> operator, which uses it for backhauling purposes."
> 
> Not sure if you are trying to combine these just so that there would be not too much
> changes to the structure of the current draft, but you should decide which direction
> you want to go. I think what Vesna also mentioned in her feedback is the lack of
> clear ownership categorization.
> 
> How I see it:
> 
> - or we see ownership something which is part of the commercial model category,
> but then we need to add additional options to this category to make it clear what are
> those possible ownership combinations
> - or we see ownership something which is orthogonal dimension to the commercial
> model and then we list possible options there
> 
> Personally, I think ownership is an orthogonal dimension to the commercial model.
> But in any case I really think this should be listed in the table at the beginning of
> each alternative network description.
> The reason is that this is one of the core properties of community networks (and
> some other alternative networks). This is in fact one of main innovations in this
> space. We can hardly discuss alternative networks if we do not tackle alternative
> models of ownership. This is why I believe ownership should even be its own
> category. Because then to the readers it will be much cleaner why are those
> networks
> different:
> 
> - they have different business models
> - they have different ownership models
> - they have different organizational structures
> - they exist in areas where traditional ISPs do not (rural areas)
> - they use technologies in innovative ways
> 
> I think those are really important dimensions along which to describe networks.
> 
> I can understand that it is maybe hard to add one more category, but I think it is
> really important.
> 

BR,

Jose