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

Mat Ford <> Mon, 01 February 2016 12:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0C801A000E; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 04:27:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 70bo8b2Z-20J; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 04:27:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::1:662]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 936391A000F; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 04:26:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1-isoc-org; h=From:To:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=mJCpdd5GSbmuFARa1EPGLd0VjK0wbT9J9gO5HauhuQ4=; b=tboTPzmpxgWjZUQwYW/qfj+iKmAMUU2sMAKI72XWwaetjwSLsLqeqRNg14sfriSuISs78XttVZ2DlAfLxv6kH7Zdd+NUuXrQzQIvoGLDQVSq3NVPZMjwf9umZkxeUubM2/yMzrF0n5KRZK/gSRHHgFF/n63evOSVyp1S+hoNwlw=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.396.15; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 12:26:36 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0396.020; Mon, 1 Feb 2016 12:26:35 +0000
From: Mat Ford <>
To: Niels ten Oever <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments
Thread-Index: AQHRTsBK1GwhBadOPkK3OouKERIk3Z8U0C0AgAJp5IA=
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 12:26:35 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results:; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;; dmarc=none action=none;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: []
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CO2PR06MB603; 5:/eQhxzp9fCdxYm9H4GBGVQO1tnZJ35aczZXsUgvRiZD58IzzsM6n8leTpSkkzkkva2/G3nZloaRVDddIwq6ByzvkaUtE0k7Z2+yH5an7ezz4ruQ0oATnXe077++mQBTFqUOtDKERWjaJrJVS+BqQwg==; 24:xoPVIJq6cmI+r8gPJ/0RFtT5L8dP6sgqbi4W3cRT4MCUz0Nd8wJkKbnK/AVgIEwQfc2Mu37Ije3ijKAPkBBe8rvggW75hDbPX77SD+CaccU=
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO2PR06MB603;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 96eda046-98cd-4c83-7874-08d32b02ed42
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046); SRVR:CO2PR06MB603; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO2PR06MB603;
x-forefront-prvs: 0839D067E7
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(6009001)(377454003)(24454002)(479174004)(19580405001)(4326007)(77096005)(15975445007)(3280700002)(19580395003)(82746002)(83716003)(86362001)(575784001)(5001770100001)(3660700001)(2900100001)(2950100001)(10400500002)(230783001)(87936001)(3470700001)(33656002)(2906002)(92566002)(66066001)(36756003)(5890100001)(76176999)(54356999)(189998001)(1096002)(1220700001)(99286002)(5008740100001)(2501003)(40100003)(586003)(15974865002)(5001960100002)(122556002)(5002640100001)(102836003)(50986999)(3846002)(6116002)(5004730100002)(106116001)(104396002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR06MB603;; FPR:; SPF:None; MLV:sfv; LANG:en;
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 01 Feb 2016 12:26:35.3138 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 89f84dfb-7285-4810-bc4d-8b9b5794554f
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO2PR06MB603
Archived-At: <>
Cc: gaia <>, Internet Research Steering Group <>
Subject: Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2016 12:27:04 -0000

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


> On 30 Jan 2016, at 23:35, Niels ten Oever <> wrote:
> Dear all,
> Please find my review of
> below. This is my first IRSG review, so please bear with me.
> I mostly followed
> 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
> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
> Article 19
> 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
>> 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:
>> Mat
> <draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-03 edit NtO.txt>