Re: [gaia] Current version of the Alternative Networks draft

[panayotis antoniadis <[e-mail]>]

Dear Jose, all

Here is the first part of my proposal for the improvement of the draft,
up to the end of Section 4 (classification criteria), trying to minimize
the suggested changes.

I will send the second part a little later depending on how the first part
will be received :-)


> Abstract

> This document presents a taxonomy of a set of "Alternative Network
>    Deployments" emerged in the last decade with the aim of bringing
>    Internet connectivity to people. 

"or of providing a local communication infrastructure to serve various
complementary needs and objectives"

[If the draft would include alternative networks with other objectives than
providing Internet access this should be reflected in the abstract.]

> topologies different from those of mainstream networks, and rely on
>    alternative business models.
I would say "alternative business *and governance* models"


> 1. Introduction

> This term
>    includes a set of network access models that have emerged in the last
>    decade with the aim of providing Internet connection, following
>    topological, architectural and business models that differ from the
>    so-called "mainstream" ones, 
again, I would add "governance" models

>
>    o  Users in mainstream networks do not participate in the network
>       design, deployment, operation and maintenance.

same here: add "governance"


>
> 2.  Terms used in this document
>
>    This document follows a multidisciplinary approach, considering the
>    multidisciplinary nature of the Internet and the problems being
>    addressed. Therefore, some concepts used in fields and disciplines
>    different from networking are being used. 

I would replace the above with the following [I don't think that it
"follows a multidisciplinary approach" since there are not other
disciplines really represented in the whole approach other than
the clarification of the terminology]:

"Considering the central role that the Internet plays today in almost
every aspect of our lives, this document touches on complex social,
political, and economic issues. Some of the concepts and terminology
used have been the subject of study of various disciplines outside the
field of networking, and responsible for long debates whose resolution
is out of the scope of this document. "

>
>
> 4.1.  Commercial model / promoter
The "commercial model" does not sound like a classification variable
and the list below is not a list of "commercial models" but different
actors involved. The term "promoter" is also very vague. I would
call this category simply "actors involved"

>
>    The entity (or entities) or individuals promoting an Alternative
>    Network can be:
>
>    o  A community of users.
>
>    o  A public stakeholder.
>
>    o  A private company.
>
>    o  Supporters of a crowdshared approach.
>
>    o  A community that already owns some infrastructure shares it with
>       an operator, which uses it for backhauling purposes.
>
>    o  A research or academic entity.
>
>    The commercial model may have different implications regarding the
>    ownership of the network equipment.  In some cases, each of the users
>    of the community maintains the ownership over the equipment they have
>    contributed, whereas in others there is an entity who owns the
>    equipment, or at least a part of it.

I would replace the above with the following:

"The above actors could play different roles in the design, financing, 
deployment,
governance, and promotion of an alternative network. For example,
each of the members of a community network maintains the ownership over the
equipment they have contributed, whereas in others there is a single entity,
e.g., a private company who owns the equipment, or at least a part of it."


>
> 4.2.  Goals and motivation
I propose to change this classification criteria to "Benefits"
>
>    Alternative Networks can also be classified according to the
>    underlying motivation for them, e.g., addressing deployment and usage
>    hurdles:
And change the above as follows:

Alternative Networks can be classified according to the benefits that they
bring compared to mainstream solutions, regarding economic, technological,
social or political objectives. These benefits could be enjoyed mostly by
the actors involved (e.g., lowering costs or gaining technical 
expertise) or
by the society as a whole (e.g., Internet access in underserved areas or
network neutrality).


>
>    o  Free sharing of Internet connectivity, including altruistic
>       reasons.
I would delete "including altruistic reasons". "Free sharing" sounds 
altruistic enough :-)

And add also:

"Community building, social cohesion, quality of life" (example: Redhook 
Wifi)


BUT I still find this section a little confusing. I am not sure though 
how to simplify
it without "losing information". If I was the editor I would include in 
the classification
only the "stated goals" of different networks as presented in their web 
sites and leave
second-order goals and motivations for a "discussion"-like section. They are
very important but not really appropriate as classification criteria in 
my opinion.

However, this needs some extra work and personally I don't have the time 
to do this
right now. I could try though if you think it would be useful.

Best,

Panayotis.