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

Wed Nov 29 19:07:19 PST 2017

Unfortunately, needs of real people are hard to be modeled. Precisely, CNs are designed upon demand in contrast to service offerings pursuing a market. Not even they follow conventional market rules as depicted in books. Models for CNs exist, and are well known amongst engineers designing and deploying the infrastructure. Gladly, these networks grow and operate in such adverse conditions, which are mostly known by CNs developers and operators. A big mistake is to think such a networks as Internet-for-the-poor, there are well documented cases of CNs in wealthy environments, where needs are different. Nevertheless, CNs provide a unique experience which has been long-time forgotten when speaking about the Internet. I will suggest looking at CNs growing figures, which are amazing, not only a village a year.

And again my full support CNs SIG

Yours,

Luis M Martinez
President ISOC Mx

[https://www.isoc.mx/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/LMM.png]
Dr. Luis Miguel Martinez
Coordinador del Programa de Convergencia Digital
President ISOC Mx
Departamento de Comunicación, Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México
p:      +52-5559504113
a:      Prolg. Paseo de la Reforma 880, Lomas de Santa Fe, CdMx, 01219, MEXICO
w:      www.uia.mx<http://www.uia.mx>  e: luism.martinez at ibero.mx<mailto:luism.martinez at ibero.mx>

On November 29, 2017 at 7:55:17 PM, Alejandro Pisanty (apisanty at gmail.com<mailto:apisanty at gmail.com>) wrote:

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<mailto: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<mailto: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
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
_______________________________________________
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

La Universidad Iberoamericana, A.C. (IBERO) con domicilio en Prolongación Paseo de la Reforma número 880, Colonia Lomas de Santa Fe, Delegación Álvaro Obregón, Código Postal 01219, en la Ciudad de México, utilizara sus datos personales recabados para la prestación de los servicios académicos y administrativos en el sistema educativo de la IBERO. Para mayor información acerca del tratamiento y de los derechos que puede hacer valer, usted puede acceder al aviso de privacidad integral ingresando a la liga http://www.ibero.mx/aviso-legal-y-de-privacidad.