[Chapter-delegates] Application to form new Special Interest Group: Community Networks

[Alejandro Pisanty]

Hi,

Community Networks are one of the worthiest endeavors to close the digital
divide and make access to the Internet for everyone a reality. I applaud
the initiative and to make it more likely to succeed I offer the following
comments (parental advisory: toes will be painfully stepped upon with the
intent of making a clear statement on key concepts.)

The present approaches are not scaling well. The approach that makes each
village - speaking about the case of small clusters of population away from
optical fiber to keep this rather specific - requires a heroic effort for
each location that has to be replicated slowly and with great expense in
each new one. Since physics, economics (in today's density-based models),
technology development, and social factors are all adverse, this
whack-a-mole mode will continue for a long time but it will also continue
to suffer from the problems of expense, long lead time, and numerous
instabilities (personnel rotation at the village level, inability to keep
links and equipment functioning over the long run, human and organizations
who have too many incentives to become gateways being but some of them.) A
village a year cannot be the model.

The SIG IMO has to add a very high priority and an urgent task of finding
ways to scale up community networking by providing handbooks, e-learning
and other forms of remote training, keeping a pipeline of trainees at the
village level, creating modular kits for to-village and intra-village
connectivity that are easily set up and maintained, and models for
sustainable funding. While each case is singular, particular,
all-of-its-own-singular-particular-class, once we look at a few hundred
cases distinct patterns emerge. It is necessary and urgent to build upon
them for scale.

On the constitution of the SIG: as long as this is going to be an ISOC SIG
there has to be a differentiation between what ISOC members, chapters and
staff will do, what Organizational Members can contribute, and what other
self-governing organizations witll do. Starting the SIG with alliances
already in place is good, but depending on them for determining ISOC's
actions is - starkly said - not. I have witnessed enough polarization and
divisiveness in this field to back my statement. Some Organizational
Members are telcos which have been either strongly opposed (de jure or de
facto), others neutral, others helpful, in regulation, legislation,
spectrum and rights-of-way allocation, and the political organization of
communities around and for networks. Others will happily customize and
donate gear... maybe. Others are fully in a business model that can be a
valuable contribution. But, back to the main point of this paragraph, I
think it is much preferable to constitute an ISOC SIG with ISOC resources
and have the alliances stay as that. It will be more sustainable in the
long run.

ISOC has some irrepleaceable resources, people in our Hall of Fame or
Postel Prizes, like Mahabir Pun and Ermanno Pietrosemoli; experience in the
field including emergency response like in Nepal; and many others. We have
not been effective enough yet in bringing them together and that should
also be a priority for the SIG. Attending conferences goes several steps
lower if we haven't put together in an effective way all of ISOC's
wherewithal. Let's also therefore make a clear statement of what the SIG
expects from ISOC staff, which could be a lot and very helpful.

I do agree that the IGF Dynamic Coalition format may be useful for
different purposes than the SIG but would also remind those needing it that
the Dynamic Coalitions were thought of as emerging organizations that first
form from a meeting of minds and commonality of purpose within the IGF and
then carry resolution- and action-capable work. In a medium- or long-term
perspective they may become fully constituted organizations on their own
terms. Let's not sabotage that by throwing away the baby with the bath
water.

Recent SIG formations also teach us that a collective endeavor must be
guaranteed and subject to vigilance. Participation, discussion and
collective decision-making have not been active e.g. in the Cybersecurity
SIG and we are all the poorer for that. Let's not repeat the mistake.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Kyle Shulman <shulman at isoc.org> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> The following application to start a Special Interest Group (SIG):
> Community Networks has been received. It is being sent to the chapter
> delegates community for peer comment and review. Please note that the SIG
> has not yet formed and has not officially been recognized by the Internet
> Society. The period allowed for comments is two weeks from today and the
> deadline is 13th December 2017. Please do not hesitate to contact me on or
> off list.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kyle Shulman
> Global Engagement Project Manager
> Special Interest Group (SIG) Manager
> Shulman at isoc.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org
>



-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20171129/373fab68/attachment.htm>