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

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 16:08:25 +0200

Hi,

> Section 4.2. I think this is a very limited set of motivations. From our
network and
> from my experience talking to other community networks, I would claim that
many
> share also much more altruistic motivations. For example, our whole
network is
> build around principle that some of us have abundance of Internet
connectivity at
> home (FTTH), so we can share part of that openly with everyone. More of us
will
> share it, more people will have access to Internet. Of course there are
other
> motivations why people participate, and everyone has a different mix of
those
> motivations, but I definitely think that the list should be extended to
include:
> 
> - free sharing of Internet connectivity, altruism
> - various forms of activism (network neutrality guarantees,
anti-censorship,
> decentralization to minimize control, showing that alternative is
possible)
> - building a new type of commons
> - not being just a consumer, but active participant, wanting to have a say
in
> operations
> - provide local services to local people, tighten/reconnect the community
(eg.
> http://tidepools.co/)
> - provide alternative service in case of natural disasters and other
extreme situations
> - wanting to have a space for experimentation and teaching of others,
empowering
> others to take their Internet connectivity into their own hands
> 
> An example of another network describing itself with much more of what I
am
> writing than what is currently on the list:
> https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Mesh
> 
> All those are goals and motivations (and those are just few I remembered
without
> much thinking) for many community networks. I do not think the list in
section 4.2
> can ever be comprehensive, but I was really taken aback from its
economy-centric
> bias at the moment. Most community networks do not operate on that level.
It is of
> course present, but there are some other primary motivations why people
are doing
> it.

This would be the new version of this subsection. Feel free to send your
comments.

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,
      etc.

   o  Providing an alternative service in case of natural disasters and
      other extreme situations.

Best regards,

Jose

---

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:59:24 -0700

Hi!

This sounds great!

Mitar

-- 
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

---

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 02:10:35 -0700

Hi!

Maybe this one can be expanded to include commons:

- Various forms of activism, looking for network neutrality
  guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize control,
  building of commons, etc.

Maybe one more can be added:

- Preferring alternative ownership model (co-owning, co-operating)
  of the networking infrastructure.

For the second part, there is a whole movement these days about this,
trying to define it for services as well, not just infrastructure:

http://p2pfoundation.net/Platform_Cooperativism

Mitar

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:33:04 +0200

Hi,

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: gaia [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de Mitar
> Enviado el: miércoles, 13 de abril de 2016 11:11
> Para: Jose Saldana <[email-masked]>
> CC: gaia <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar
review,
> question #1: Motivations

When you say "building of commons", do you mean "Digital commons"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons#Digital_commons .

- 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.

> For the second part, there is a whole movement these days about this,
trying to
> define it for services as well, not just infrastructure:
> 
This would be the new version:

   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  Preferring alternative ownership model (co-owning, co-operating)
      of the networking infrastructure.

Thanks again,

Jose

---

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 00:52:41 -0700

Hi!

> 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.)

> 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.).

>       of the networking infrastructure.

Looks better and better. Great! Thanks!

Mitar

---

From: panayotis antoniadis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:50:43 +0200

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.

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:03:01 +0200

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 

> >>        of the networking infrastructure.

Do you agree with the separation?

Jose

> De: gaia [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de panayotis antoniadis
> Enviado el: jueves, 14 de abril de 2016 10:51
> Para: [email-masked]
review,
> 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.
> 
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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia

---

From: panayotis antoniadis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:17:51 +0200

On 14/04/16 11:03, Jose Saldana wrote:
> [...]

Yes, I think that the separation is necessary and especially for the 
case of
"motivations", in case you think it is really important to include them, 
I would
be at least careful with the phrasing and add some references. Having read
most of the literature on this topic I will try to polish this part and 
make a
concrete proposal (next week).

---

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 02:30:40 -0700

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?

Mitar

---

From: Roger Baig Viñas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:47:45 +0200

Hi,

On 04/14/2016 09:52 AM, Mitar wrote:
>>> guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize 
>>> control, building of commons, etc.
>> 
> 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.
> 
I haven't had the time to read the whole paper, but, at least the
statement

"Guifi.net's infrastructure is managed as a “commons”: it is legally owned
and commercially run by a nonprofit foundation (on behalf of its users)."

is not true:

1) the contributor keeps the ownership rights over the contributions
made, so, he/she/it (e.g. public admins., enterprises, etc.) can keep
the ownership or he/she/it can donate them to the Foundation (this has
become the preferred/recommended practice by the Foundation as is the
best way to ensure that these contributions will never be removed from
the common pool resource) among any other actions the holder of the
ownership rights is permitted to take by law.

2) commercial activity is essentially done by ISPs (we call them "the
professionals")

my thoughts:

1) probably the mistakes are related to a weak understanding of the
implications of the  "common pool resource" (CPR), or, at least,
what are our understanding of these implications. The general idea
behind guifi.net is that we understand the network part of the
network-contents pairing as a CPR, so both the deployment and the
operation of the network infrastructure is done cooperatively.
We show this in slide 3 of
https://guifi.net/files/20160414_Fundacio_guifi.pdf
using a well know reference diagram (guifi model at the very right)

2) I have the impression that the, at least in some cases, the academics
do not spend enough time in understanding the details and the
consequences these details of what they
study. I guess this is, at least in some cases, due to the heavy
publication pressure they are under. In any case, it is a pity,
because, at least in many cases, the details make a big difference.

Thanks for all these efforts and the constructive discussion.

>> guarantees, anti-censorship, decentralization to minimize 
>> control, creating and sharing of "commons"  (i.e. information
>> and knowledge resources that are collectively shared), etc.
> 
>> 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  Becoming an active participant in the deployment and 
>> management of a real and operational network.
>> 
>> 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.
> 

- -- 
Roger Baig Viñas
Fundació Privada per a la Xarxa Oberta, Lliure i Neutral guifi.net

---

From: panayotis antoniadis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:53:41 +0200

> 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.

>> control,
>> usage
>> control,

---

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:37:22 -0700

Hi!

> 2) commercial activity is essentially done by ISPs (we call them "the

Hm, I do not see this conflicting at all? This is more or less what I
was proposing to be said about community networks and ownership: that
people own it, or they donate it to the network as it is.

This forms a commons which is cooperatively managed.

But I agree that the snippet from the paper looks more like the only
way to do it is by donating it to the Foundation. And I agree that
"commercially run" might not the right choice of words there. But
"commercially" does not necessary mean for-profit. It can also mean in
the scope of this document that the Foundation is one behind the
"commercial model / promoter".

Anyway, I did not reference this paper as a paper which describes
everything correctly (as you might noticed, that is a really hard
process) and we should cite for descriptions of the networks, but as
an example of analysis that what community networks are build can be
seen as commons. If a particular network does or does not see what
they are doing as commons is a separate question. I do know that we
see it as such in wlan slovenija. And that this paper talks about how
you can see it as such and explain what commons would in this context
mean.

Mitar

---

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 11:40:24 -0700

Hi!

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

I would strongly be in favor of including also those social aspects in
this document. At least for community networks those are very
important aspects and it is really hard to explain why they exist
without at least touching them and pointing to them. We do not have to
go into details, but saying that there is more to it than just
satisfying some goals or needs is I think very important.

It is similar to trying to explain Wikipedia. Just saying that people
are contributing to it because they want an encyclopedia would not
explain to the reader really why Wikipedia exists and why it is like
it is.

Mitar

---

From: panayotis antoniadis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 23:21:00 +0200

Hi Mitar,

I agree that describing the social aspects is important but I cannot
see how personal motivations could be used as a "classification"
variable of the systems themselves.

As every system is different, the same holds for the motivations
of the individual members in each of them. For Wikipedia, there
are many studies trying to understand why people do contribute,
and there is not a single answer.

In my mind, systems/communities/groups have more "stated goals"
than motivations, which refer more to individuals (at least based
on my understanding of the language). And those goals could be
collectively shaped, or defined by a leader and followed by those
that join, who can be "motivated" by the stated goals or other
personal reasons :-)

Actually, this is not a big problem since in the current list I see only
two items that I would classify strictly as "motivation" ("altruism",
which by itself a very contested term, and "becoming an active
participant ...").

If you don't feel very attached to the word "motivation" I would
rephrase the current list to read as a list of "stated goals", or "visions"
if you prefer, and add at the end a paragraph on personal motivations
and the collective shaping of the community "vision/identity" over time
(pointing to external sources for further reading.)

In any case, you could wait until next week for me to write down
a concrete proposal and then shoot back :-)

(btw, thank you very much for stirring things up)

Panos

---

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:36:18 -0700

Hi!

My main issue was that focus and wording was so much about incentives
and I wanted to also that we explain that there is more to it than
just incentives. If we stop talking about incentives and talk about
goals then maybe we can explain all this differently, I agree.

Let's see your proposal.

Mitar