19 Mar
2018
19 Mar
'18
3:26 p.m.
Dear all,
In case you will be at IETF 101, I would like to invite you to my presentation on Network
Self-determination on Thursday afternoon at 15:50.
I have also been asked to draft a brief article (that will be published on the IETF
journal) to provide an intro to the concept. Below the draft, which is based on my paper
on network
self-determination<https://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19924> and
cites many initiatives developed by DC3 members over the past years.
Any feedback - possibly, before next week - is more than welcome and will be acknowledged
in the final version.
Hope to see some of you on Thursday
All the best
Luca
De: Luca Belli
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 16 de março de 2018 18:49
Para: 'Hrpc' <hrpc(a)irtf.org>rg>; 'Niels ten Oever'
<mail(a)nielstenoever.net>
Cc: 'Matthew Ford' <ford(a)isoc.org>rg>; 'Mallory Knodel'
<mallory(a)article19.org>
Assunto: Intro to Network Self-determination
Dear all,
I have drafted a post as an introduction to my presentation on Network Self-determination
(at the bottom of this email).
Should you be interested in providing your feedback on this DRAFT, feel free to reply to
this email or to use the Etherpad or Googledoc below.
Googledoc here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15eHsqEC_gQip6NBTIpF-aMyg0DgVXxinr2wdYxh…
Etherpad here https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/NetworkSelf-determination
Feedback through live interactions during or after the presentation are also highly
appreciated :)
The consolidated draft of the article will be published in the IETF Journal, right after
IETF 101. Obviously, all people having provided feedback will be duly acknowledged.
Many thanks and kind regards
Luca
NONFINAL DRAFT
Network Self-determination:
When building the Internet becomes a right
Luca Belli
Anyone reading this article would agree that the Internet and ICTs play an increasingly
essential role in every connected individual's life. The accessibility and
well-functioning of network infrastructure at affordable and non-discriminatory conditions
facilitate significantly the full enjoyment of one's fundamental rights, as Internet
users can easily access knowledge and education, conduct businesses by trading goods and
services online, and utilize digitized public services, spanning from tax-paying to
applying for public schools or receiving remote medical consultations via e-health.
As connected individuals, we can safely state that the Internet has become integral part
of our lives and our environment, affecting substantially how we form our opinions, how we
socialize and learn and, ultimately, what opportunities we are able to grasp over the
course of our lives. But what about the unconnected?
The current digital (r)evolution can also deepen divides in our societies, due to the
uneven distribution of digital dividends between those for which connectivity is available
and easily affordable and those who are either unconnected or face considerable challenges
to connect.[1]
This article briefly explores how groups of unconnected and scarcely connected individuals
can regain control over their digital futures, building their own community networks and
enjoying what I define as "Network Self-determination."[2] I argue that Network
Self-determination leads to several positive externalities for the affected communities
while preserving the Internet as a decentralized, interoperable and generative network of
networks.
In this perspective, concrete examples of communities enjoying Network Self-determination
seem to prove that "the design and development of the Internet infrastructure have a
growing impact on society"[3] and can construct a digital environment that enables
human rights.
Mainstream networks are not so mainstream
In almost every country in the world, Internet connectivity predominantly relies on the
existence of network infrastructure built and managed by for-profit operators. Such
infrastructure is primarily composed of "mainstream networks," which are those
networks that RFC 7962[4] characterizes as controlled in a top-down fashion by the
operators; spanning large areas; requiring a substantial investment to be built and
maintained; and not foreseeing the possibility for users to participate in the
network's governance.
Not surprisingly, mainstream networks are mainly deployed and operationalized in densely
populated areas, where return on investments can be quite fast and straightforward, due to
the high demand of connectivity by thousands - or millions - of city dwellers. The
situation, however, is not the same in rural areas or in the peripheries of major
metropolises, where the scarce density and lower standards of living cannot guarantee
immediate and sufficient return on investment for operators.
In rural and peripheral areas, which are home to the 48% of the world population that is
currently unconnected,[5] the sole reliance on mainstream networks does not prove to be an
effective strategy to expand connectivity. Indeed, the prospect of a missed return on
investment discourages development of infrastructure, leading to lack of coverage or to
such high prices and low quality of service that potential or existing users might be
discouraged from subscribing to available Internet-access offerings. In such context,
several studies have pointed out that the lack of competition can make Internet-access
offerings so prohibitively expensive that locals need to sacrifice food to afford
communications.[6]
Most importantly, individuals living in unconnected or scarcely connected areas may
rightfully fail to see the appeal of Internet access because any services or content that
would improve their welfare - such as local government services, information and
educational material in local languages and platforms making available local products and
services - are not available online.
Do-It-Yourself Internet
Despite the above scenario, many individuals living in unconnected or scarcely connected
communities have realized that Internet connectivity is a vector for many economic, social
and cultural opportunities and have taken action to stop being digitally-marginalized, due
to market failures and inefficient public policies, and start building their own community
networks, to become the protagonists of their digital futures.
Concretely, such reasoning has become possible thanks to the steady reduction in
infrastructure costs - particularly, regarding bandwidth and network equipment - that,
over the past decade, has facilitated the deployment of community networks with reasonably
low investments.
Community networks are crowdsourced initiatives. Described by RFC 7962 as
"alternative networks," they are "networks that do not share the
characteristics of mainstream network deployments." On the contrary, community
networks are better characterized by the fact that they are developed in a bottom-up
fashion, in order to be utilized and managed by the local community as commons. As
stressed by the Declaration on Community Connectivity[7] these networks are
"structured to be open, free, and to respect network neutrality. Such networks rely
on the active participation of local communities in the design, development, deployment,
and management of shared infrastructure as a common resource, owned by the community, and
operated in a democratic fashion."
Besides representing a viable solution to the limits of mainstream networks, community
networks also ensure that Internet traffic is managed with no commercially motivated
discrimination, thus respecting net neutrality[8] by default. Indeed, all network users
are partners in the provision of connectivity and in the development of services for the
local community, thus making it much more difficult that the provider - which is the
community itself - discriminate content, applications or services based on commercial
considerations.
These initiatives demonstrate that connectivity, openness, free choice and full enjoyment
of fundamental rights are not amenities reserved to opulent city-dwellers but basic needs
to which everyone is entitled and that everyone can and must enjoy. Moreover, they prove
that "connectivity increases the capacity for individuals to exercise their
rights."[9]
When the last mile becomes the first mile
Community networking evidences that, in many circumstances, the unconnected can connect
themselves, as longs as they have information on how to build[10] their network
infrastructure and the freedom to choose this option.
It is precisely in such perspective that an ample range of community networks emerged in
many diverse countries, going from the UK<https://b4rn.org.uk/> to
Argentina<http://www.altermundi.net/> and from
Brazil<http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/> to Spain<http://guifi.net/>t/>.
Broadband for the Rural North, or B4RN, which is pronounced "barn," was
initiated in 2011 by a group of farmers and a hairdresser in Lancashire, U.K., who decided
to overcome the lack of connectivity by starting self-installing fibre. Today the B4RN
network connects 40 parishes and provides speeds as high as 1 gigabit per second.
The NGO AlterMundi,[11] which is behind QuintanaLibre, a community network in the
Argentinian province of Córdoba, prides itself on having successfully developed a
"geek-free" model to overcome the main challenges posed by rural environments,
the scarcity of engineers and reduced incomes, by developing an easy to implement and
cost-efficient network technology. Importantly, the availability of connectivity has
stimulated the development of several applications by the locals for the locals, including
an information portal, a chat service, a VoIP server, community radio streaming, a file
sharing system and gaming applications.
The AlterMundi-affiliated networks also provide Internet access to three schools, giving
students the opportunity to access online resources. Similarly, the Brazilian NGO
Coolab[12] provides connectivity and ICT training to dozen children through the Casa dos
Meninos project while connecting and entire village via the Fumaça community network, in
the Rio de Janeiro state.
The most successful example is Guifi.net that, besides being the biggest and the most
populated community network in the world with over 85,000 users, is particularly
outstanding for its common-pool-resource philosophy that favors the establishment of
"a disruptive economic model based on the commons model and the collaborative
economy,"[13] encouraging small, local entrants to develop new applications and to
extend the network themselves.[14] Indeed, Guifi.net members have generated a variety of
services[15], amongst which VoIP servers, IRC servers, videoconference and mail servers
and broadcast radios.
Importantly, besides expanding the Internet and promoting innovation in a decentralized
fashion, community networks like Guifi.net have created dozens of new jobs related to
network maintenance and entirely new digital ecosystems. Indeed community networking
generally features capacity-building programs for locals to acquire the skills they need
to be developers, creators and online entrepreneurs.
In this perspective, community networks, built by the people for the people,[16] should
not be considered as the last mile of the Internet but rather as the first mile, for they
have a vital role in maximizing the generative nature of the Internet, decentralizing
innovation and empowering the unconnected.
Network Self-determination
Examples of community networks show that these initiatives nurture the development of
community-tailored services, stimulating new opportunities for learning, trading and
employment for locals.
Hence, these initiatives provide a sound evidence base on which a right to "Network
Self-determination" can be constructed. I propose the concept of Network
Self-determination as the right to freely associate to define, in a democratic fashion,
the design, development and management of network infrastructure as a common good, in
order to freely seek, impart and receive information and innovation.
While community networking proves that Network Self-determination already exists de facto
even without being explicitly consecrated de jure, it is important to stress that this
concept is also solidly grounded in International human rights law.
The first article of both the Charter of the United Nations and the two International
Covenants of Human Rights decisively affirm that, by virtue of the fundamental right to
self-determination, all peoples are free to pursue their economic, social and cultural
development as well as self-organization. According to both Articles 1(3) of both
Covenants, all states have an obligation "to promote the realization of the right to
self-determination," which is considered the collective right of a given community to
determine its own destiny.
Community networks foster Network Self-determination, for they allow individuals to decide
independently how to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, choosing
which kind of technology, applications and content are best suited to meet the needs of
the local community and using and developing them at the local level, in a
quintessentially distributed fashion. The goal of community networking is indeed to
empower individuals who will become new, active participants in the Internet, thus
enjoying the benefits of connectivity while contributing to the evolution the network of
networks as "a large, varied and evolving space of technology."[17]
Rights, as technologies, are the product of history
The enjoyment of Network Self-determination through the development of community networks
can prompt several positive externalities, thus fostering a decentralised Internet and
allowing previously unconnected or scarcely connected individuals to access knowledge and
education, create new applications and find occupations, having access to the entire
spectrum of opportunities to which any individual should be entitled.
Enthusiasm and optimism regarding community networking should be tempered with a good dose
of pragmatism, though. Indeed, alternative networks should be seen as a valuable
complement to existing approaches rather than a silver bullet that can solve all
connectivity problems. Community networks require sound planning and good governance to be
successful and face many technical and policy obstacles over their path. In this
perspective, the IETF community should consider that Internet standards are vital to allow
the establishment, interoperability and, potentially, the federation of community
networks.
There is no doubt that Network Self-determination reinforces the distributed nature of the
Internet and there is no reason why individuals should not have the possibility to build
the Internet themselves, improving their standards of living while bridging digital
divides.
Communities around the globe are discovering they have the potential to create alternative
networks and many of them are already doing so. As the Italian philosopher Norberto Bobbio
famously argued, human rights are the product of historical evolutions.[18] In this
spirit, everyone should be free to enjoy Network Self-determination, associating and
building a new piece of the Internet.
[1] See http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016
[2] See Belli L. (2017). Network Self-Determination and the Positive Externalities of
Community Networks. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19924
[3] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[4] See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7962.txt
[5] See https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2017…
[6] See e.g. Rey-Moreno, C., Blignaut, R., May, J., & Tucker, W. D. (2016). An
in-depth study of the ICT ecosystem in a South African rural community: unveiling
expenditure and communication patterns. Information Technology for Development Vol. 22
(sup 1). Pp 101-120.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145<http://doi.org/10.1080/0268…
[7] See Declaration on Community Connectivity http://communityconnectivity.xyz/
[8] See http://www.networkneutrality.info/
[9] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[10] See https://commotionwireless.net/docs/cck/
[11] See http://altermundi.net/
[12] See http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/
[13] See https://guifi.net/en/what_is_guifinet
[14] See Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., Navarro L. (2015). Guifi.net, a Crowdsourced
Network Infrastructure Held in Common. In Computer Networks. N° 90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009
[15] A complete list of services developed by the Guifi.net community can be found at
https://guifi.net/en/node/3671/view/services
[16] See Belli L. (Ed.) (2017). Community networks: the Internet by the people, for the
people. Official Outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity. FGV
Direito Rio. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19401
[17] See RFC 1958 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958
[18] See Bobbio N. (1990). L'età dei diritti.
[FGV Direito Rio]
Luca Belli, PhD
Senior Researcher
Head of Internet Governance @ FGV<http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>
luca.belli@fgv.br<mailto:luca.belli@fgv.br>
+55 21 3799 5763
@1lucabelli<https://twitter.com/1lucabelli>
[http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]
________________________________
________________________________
[1] See http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016
[2] See Belli L. (2017). Network Self-Determination and the Positive Externalities of
Community Networks. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19924
[3] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[4] See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7962.txt
[5] See https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2017…
[6] See e.g. Rey-Moreno, C., Blignaut, R., May, J., & Tucker, W. D. (2016). An
in-depth study of the ICT ecosystem in a South African rural community: unveiling
expenditure and communication patterns. Information Technology for Development Vol. 22
(sup 1). Pp 101-120. http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145
[7] See Declaration on Community Connectivity http://communityconnectivity.xyz/
[8] See http://www.networkneutrality.info/
[9] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[10] See https://commotionwireless.net/docs/cck/
[11] See http://altermundi.net/
[12] See http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/
[13] See https://guifi.net/en/what_is_guifinet
[14] See Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., Navarro L. (2015). Guifi.net, a Crowdsourced
Network Infrastructure Held in Common. In Computer Networks. N° 90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009
[15] A complete list of services developed by the Guifi.net community can be found at
https://guifi.net/en/node/3671/view/services
[16] See Belli L. (Ed.) (2017). Community networks: the Internet by the people, for the
people. Official Outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity. FGV
Direito Rio. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19401
[17] See RFC 1958 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958
[18] See Bobbio N. (1990). L'età dei diritti.
8 Apr
8 Apr
1:45 p.m.
Hi
I sent you your pictures at the event.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157692283168192
G
Glenn McKnight
NARALO Secretariat
mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com
skype gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
289-830 6259
.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Luca Belli <luca.belli(a)fgv.br> wrote:
Dear all,
In case you will be at IETF 101, I would like to invite you to my
presentation on Network Self-determination on Thursday afternoon at 15:50.
I have also been asked to draft a brief article (that will be published on
the IETF journal) to provide an intro to the concept. Below the draft,
which is based on my paper on network self-determination
<https://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19924> and cites
many initiatives developed by DC3 members over the past years.
Any feedback – possibly, before next week – is more than welcome and will
be acknowledged in the final version.
Hope to see some of you on Thursday
All the best
Luca
*De:* Luca Belli
*Enviada em:* sexta-feira, 16 de março de 2018 18:49
*Para:* 'Hrpc' <hrpc(a)irtf.org>rg>; 'Niels ten Oever'
<mail(a)nielstenoever.net>
*Cc:* 'Matthew Ford' <ford(a)isoc.org>rg>; 'Mallory Knodel' <
mallory(a)article19.org>
*Assunto:* Intro to Network Self-determination
Dear all,
I have drafted a post as an introduction to my presentation on Network
Self-determination (at the bottom of this email).
Should you be interested in providing your feedback on this DRAFT, feel
free to reply to this email or to use the Etherpad or Googledoc below.
Googledoc here https://docs.google.com/document/d/15eHsqEC_gQip6NBTIpF-
aMyg0DgVXxinr2wdYxhxTXQ/edit#
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/15eHsqEC_gQip6NBTIpF-aMyg0DgVXxinr2wdYxhxTXQ/edit>
Etherpad here https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/NetworkSelf-
determination
Feedback through live interactions during or after the presentation are
also highly appreciated J
The consolidated draft of the article will be published in the IETF
Journal, right after IETF 101. Obviously, all people having provided
feedback will be duly acknowledged.
Many thanks and kind regards
Luca
*NONFINAL DRAFT*
*Network Self-determination:*
*When building the Internet becomes a right*
*Luca Belli*
Anyone reading this article would agree that the Internet and ICTs play an
increasingly essential role in every *connected* individual’s life. The
accessibility and well-functioning of network infrastructure at affordable
and non-discriminatory conditions facilitate significantly the full
enjoyment of one’s fundamental rights, as Internet users can easily access
knowledge and education, conduct businesses by trading goods and services
online, and utilize digitized public services, spanning from tax-paying to
applying for public schools or receiving remote medical consultations via
e-health.
As connected individuals, we can safely state that the Internet has become
integral part of our lives and our environment, affecting substantially how
we form our opinions, how we socialize and learn and, ultimately, what
opportunities we are able to grasp over the course of our lives. But what
about the unconnected?
The current digital (r)evolution can also deepen divides in our societies,
due to the uneven distribution of digital dividends between those for which
connectivity is available and easily affordable and those who are either
unconnected or face considerable challenges to connect.[1]
<#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn1>
This article briefly explores how groups of unconnected and scarcely
connected individuals can regain control over their digital futures,
building their own community networks and enjoying what I define as
“Network Self-determination.”[2] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn2> I argue
that Network Self-determination leads to several positive externalities for
the affected communities while preserving the Internet as a decentralized,
interoperable and generative network of networks.
In this perspective, concrete examples of communities enjoying Network
Self-determination seem to prove that “the design and development of the
Internet infrastructure have a growing impact on society”[3]
<#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn3> and can construct a digital environment
that enables human rights.
*Mainstream networks are not so mainstream*
In almost every country in the world, Internet connectivity predominantly
relies on the existence of network infrastructure built and managed by
for-profit operators. Such infrastructure is primarily composed of
“mainstream networks,” which are those networks that RFC 7962[4]
<#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn4> characterizes as controlled in a top-down
fashion by the operators; spanning large areas; requiring a substantial
investment to be built and maintained; and not foreseeing the possibility
for users to participate in the network’s governance.
Not surprisingly, mainstream networks are mainly deployed and
operationalized in densely populated areas, where return on investments can
be quite fast and straightforward, due to the high demand of connectivity
by thousands – or millions – of city dwellers. The situation, however, is
not the same in rural areas or in the peripheries of major metropolises,
where the scarce density and lower standards of living cannot guarantee
immediate and sufficient return on investment for operators.
In rural and peripheral areas, which are home to the 48% of the world
population that is currently unconnected,[5]
<#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn5> the sole reliance on mainstream networks
does not prove to be an effective strategy to expand connectivity. Indeed,
the prospect of a missed return on investment discourages development of
infrastructure, leading to lack of coverage or to such high prices and low
quality of service that potential or existing users might be discouraged
from subscribing to available Internet-access offerings. In such context,
several studies have pointed out that the lack of competition can make
Internet-access offerings so prohibitively expensive that locals need to
sacrifice food to afford communications.[6]
<#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn6>
Most importantly, individuals living in unconnected or scarcely connected
areas may rightfully fail to see the appeal of Internet access because any
services or content that would improve their welfare – such as local
government services, information and educational material in local
languages and platforms making available local products and services – are
not available online.
*Do-It-Yourself Internet *
Despite the above scenario, many individuals living in unconnected or
scarcely connected communities have realized that Internet connectivity is
a vector for many economic, social and cultural opportunities and have
taken action to stop being digitally-marginalized, due to market failures
and inefficient public policies, and start building their own community
networks, to become the protagonists of their digital futures.
Concretely, such reasoning has become possible thanks to the steady
reduction in infrastructure costs – particularly, regarding bandwidth and
network equipment – that, over the past decade, has facilitated the
deployment of community networks with reasonably low investments.
Community networks are crowdsourced initiatives. Described by RFC 7962 as
“alternative networks,” they are “networks that do not share the
characteristics of mainstream network deployments.” On the contrary,
community networks are better characterized by the fact that they are
developed in a bottom-up fashion, in order to be utilized and managed by
the local community as commons. As stressed by the Declaration on Community
Connectivity[7] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn7> these networks are
“structured to be open, free, and to respect network neutrality. Such
networks rely on the active participation of local communities in the
design, development, deployment, and management of shared infrastructure as
a common resource, owned by the community, and operated in a democratic
fashion.”
Besides representing a viable solution to the limits of mainstream
networks, community networks also ensure that Internet traffic is managed
with no commercially motivated discrimination, thus respecting net
neutrality[8] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn8> by default. Indeed, all
network users are partners in the provision of connectivity and in the
development of services for the local community, thus making it much more
difficult that the provider – which is the community itself – discriminate
content, applications or services based on commercial considerations.
These initiatives demonstrate that connectivity, openness, free choice and
full enjoyment of fundamental rights are not amenities reserved to opulent
city-dwellers but basic needs to which everyone is entitled and that
everyone can and must enjoy. Moreover, they prove that “connectivity
increases the capacity for individuals to exercise their rights.”[9]
<#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn9>
*When the last mile becomes the first mile *
Community networking evidences that, in many circumstances, the
unconnected can connect themselves, as longs as they have information on
how to build[10] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn10> their network
infrastructure and the freedom to choose this option.
It is precisely in such perspective that an ample range of community
networks emerged in many diverse countries, going from the UK
<https://b4rn.org.uk/> to Argentina <http://www.altermundi.net/> and from
Brazil <http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/> to Spain <http://guifi.net/>.
Broadband for the Rural North, or B4RN, which is pronounced “barn,” was
initiated in 2011 by a group of farmers and a hairdresser in Lancashire,
U.K., who decided to overcome the lack of connectivity by starting
self-installing fibre. Today the B4RN network connects 40 parishes and
provides speeds as high as 1 gigabit per second.
The NGO AlterMundi,[11] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn11> which is behind
QuintanaLibre, a community network in the Argentinian province of Córdoba,
prides itself on having successfully developed a “geek-free” model to
overcome the main challenges posed by rural environments, the scarcity of
engineers and reduced incomes, by developing an easy to implement and
cost-efficient network technology. Importantly, the availability of
connectivity has stimulated the development of several applications by the
locals for the locals, including an information portal, a chat service, a
VoIP server, community radio streaming, a file sharing system and gaming
applications.
The AlterMundi-affiliated networks also provide Internet access to three
schools, giving students the opportunity to access online resources.
Similarly, the Brazilian NGO Coolab[12] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn12>
provides connectivity and ICT training to dozen children through the *Casa
dos Meninos* project while connecting and entire village via the Fumaça
community network, in the Rio de Janeiro state.
The most successful example is Guifi.net that, besides being the biggest
and the most populated community network in the world with over 85,000
users, is particularly outstanding for its common-pool-resource philosophy
that favors the establishment of “a disruptive economic model based on the
commons model and the collaborative economy,”[13]
<#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn13> encouraging small, local entrants to
develop new applications and to extend the network themselves.[14]
<#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn14> Indeed, Guifi.net members have generated
a variety of services[15] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn15>, amongst which VoIP
servers, IRC servers, videoconference and mail servers and broadcast radios.
Importantly, besides expanding the Internet and promoting innovation in a
decentralized fashion, community networks like Guifi.net have created
dozens of new jobs related to network maintenance and entirely new digital
ecosystems. Indeed community networking generally features
capacity-building programs for locals to acquire the skills they need to be
developers, creators and online entrepreneurs.
In this perspective, community networks, built by the people for the
people,[16] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn16> should not be considered as
the last mile of the Internet but rather as the first mile, for they have a
vital role in maximizing the generative nature of the Internet,
decentralizing innovation and empowering the unconnected.
*Network Self-determination*
Examples of community networks show that these initiatives nurture the
development of community-tailored services, stimulating new opportunities
for learning, trading and employment for locals.
Hence, these initiatives provide a sound evidence base on which a right to
“Network Self-determination” can be constructed. I propose the concept of
Network Self-determination as the right to freely associate to define, in a
democratic fashion, the design, development and management of network
infrastructure as a common good, in order to freely seek, impart and
receive information and innovation.
While community networking proves that Network Self-determination already
exists *de facto* even without being explicitly consecrated* de jure*, it
is important to stress that this concept is also solidly grounded in
International human rights law.
The first article of both the Charter of the United Nations and the two
International Covenants of Human Rights decisively affirm that, by virtue
of the fundamental right to self-determination, all peoples are free to
pursue their economic, social and cultural development as well as
self-organization. According to both Articles 1(3) of both Covenants, all
states have an obligation “to promote the realization of the right to
self-determination,” which is considered the collective right of a given
community to determine its own destiny.
Community networks foster Network Self-determination, for they allow
individuals to decide independently how to pursue their economic, social
and cultural development, choosing which kind of technology, applications
and content are best suited to meet the needs of the local community and
using and developing them at the local level, in a quintessentially
distributed fashion. The goal of community networking is indeed to empower
individuals who will become new, active participants in the Internet, thus
enjoying the benefits of connectivity while contributing to the evolution
the network of networks as “a large, varied and evolving space of
technology.”[17] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn17>
*Rights, as technologies, are the product of history *
The enjoyment of Network Self-determination through the development of
community networks can prompt several positive externalities, thus
fostering a decentralised Internet and allowing previously unconnected or
scarcely connected individuals to access knowledge and education, create
new applications and find occupations, having access to the entire spectrum
of opportunities to which any individual should be entitled.
Enthusiasm and optimism regarding community networking should be tempered
with a good dose of pragmatism, though. Indeed, alternative networks should
be seen as a valuable complement to existing approaches rather than a
silver bullet that can solve all connectivity problems. Community networks
require sound planning and good governance to be successful and face many
technical and policy obstacles over their path. In this perspective, the
IETF community should consider that Internet standards are vital to allow
the establishment, interoperability and, potentially, the federation of
community networks.
There is no doubt that Network Self-determination reinforces the
distributed nature of the Internet and there is no reason why individuals
should not have the possibility to build the Internet themselves, improving
their standards of living while bridging digital divides.
Communities around the globe are discovering they have the potential to
create alternative networks and many of them are already doing so. As the
Italian philosopher Norberto Bobbio famously argued, human rights are the
product of historical evolutions.[18 <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftn18>] In
this spirit, everyone should be free to enjoy Network Self-determination,
associating and building a new piece of the Internet.
[1] See http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016
[2] See Belli L. (2017). Network Self-Determination and the Positive
Externalities of Community Networks. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.
br/dspace/handle/10438/19924
[3] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[4] See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7962.txt
[5] See https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/
ICTFactsFigures2017.pdf
[6] See e.g. Rey-Moreno, C., Blignaut, R., May, J., & Tucker, W. D.
(2016). An in-depth study of the ICT ecosystem in a South African rural
community: unveiling expenditure and communication patterns. Information
Technology for Development Vol. 22 (sup 1). Pp 101–120.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145
<http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145>
[7] See Declaration on Community Connectivity
http://communityconnectivity.xyz/
[8] See http://www.networkneutrality.info/
[9] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[10] See https://commotionwireless.net/docs/cck/
[11] See http://altermundi.net/
[12] See http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/
[13] See https://guifi.net/en/what_is_guifinet
[14] See Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., Navarro L. (2015). Guifi.net, a
Crowdsourced Network Infrastructure Held in Common. In Computer Networks.
N° 90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009
[15] A complete list of services developed by the Guifi.net community can
be found at https://guifi.net/en/node/3671/view/services
[16] See Belli L. (Ed.) (2017). Community networks: the Internet by the
people, for the people. Official Outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on
Community Connectivity. FGV Direito Rio. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.
br/dspace/handle/10438/19401
[17] See RFC 1958 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958
[18] See Bobbio N. (1990). L'età dei diritti.
[image: FGV Direito Rio]
*Luca Belli, PhD*
*Senior Researcher *
*Head of **Internet Governance @ FGV <http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>*
luca.belli(a)fgv.br
+55 21 3799 *5763*
*@1lucabelli <https://twitter.com/1lucabelli>*
[image: http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]
------------------------------
------------------------------
[1] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref1> See http://www.worldbank.org/en/
publication/wdr2016
[2] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref2> See Belli L. (2017). Network
Self-Determination and the Positive Externalities of Community Networks.
http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19924
[3] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref3> See RFC 8280
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[4] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref4> See https://www.rfc-editor.org/
rfc/rfc7962.txt
[5] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref5> See https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/
Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2017.pdf
[6] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref6> See e.g. Rey-Moreno, C., Blignaut,
R., May, J., & Tucker, W. D. (2016). An in-depth study of the ICT ecosystem
in a South African rural community: unveiling expenditure and communication
patterns. Information Technology for Development Vol. 22 (sup 1). Pp
101–120. http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145
[7] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref7> See Declaration on Community
Connectivity http://communityconnectivity.xyz/
[8] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref8> See http://www.networkneutrality.
info/
[9] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref9> See RFC 8280
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[10] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref10> See
https://commotionwireless.net/docs/cck/
[11] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref11> See http://altermundi.net/
[12] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref12> See http://www.coolab.org/quem-
somos/
[13] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref13> See https://guifi.net/en/what_is_
guifinet
[14] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref14> See Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag,
F., Navarro L. (2015). Guifi.net, a Crowdsourced Network Infrastructure
Held in Common. In Computer Networks. N° 90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
comnet.2015.07.009
[15] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref15> A complete list of services
developed by the Guifi.net community can be found at
https://guifi.net/en/node/3671/view/services
[16] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref16> See Belli L. (Ed.) (2017).
Community networks: the Internet by the people, for the people. Official
Outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity. FGV
Direito Rio. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19401
[1 <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref17>7] See RFC 1958
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958
[18] <#m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref18> See Bobbio N. (1990). L'età dei
diritti.
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
9 Apr
9 Apr
2:51 p.m.
New subject: RES: Network Self-determination at IETF 101
Hi Glenn,
Many thanks for the photographic evidence ☺
I have also just discovered that there is a video of the presentation, available on
YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh5zM-CzCvI&t=6m58s
Have an excellent week
Luca
[FGV Direito Rio]
Luca Belli, PhD
Senior Researcher
Head of Internet Governance @ FGV<http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>
luca.belli(a)fgv.br
+55 21 3799 5763
@1lucabelli<https://twitter.com/1lucabelli>
[http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]
De: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] Em nome
de Glenn McKnight
Enviada em: domingo, 8 de abril de 2018 10:45
Para: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Assunto: Re: [DC3] Network Self-determination at IETF 101
Hi
I sent you your pictures at the event.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157692283168192
G
Glenn McKnight
NARALO Secretariat
mcknight.glenn@gmail.com<mailto:mcknight.glenn@gmail.com>
skype gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
289-830 6259
.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Luca Belli
<luca.belli@fgv.br<mailto:luca.belli@fgv.br>> wrote:
Dear all,
In case you will be at IETF 101, I would like to invite you to my presentation on Network
Self-determination on Thursday afternoon at 15:50.
I have also been asked to draft a brief article (that will be published on the IETF
journal) to provide an intro to the concept. Below the draft, which is based on my paper
on network
self-determination<https://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19924> and
cites many initiatives developed by DC3 members over the past years.
Any feedback – possibly, before next week – is more than welcome and will be acknowledged
in the final version.
Hope to see some of you on Thursday
All the best
Luca
De: Luca Belli
Enviada em: sexta-feira, 16 de março de 2018 18:49
Para: 'Hrpc' <hrpc@irtf.org<mailto:hrpc@irtf.org>>; 'Niels ten
Oever' <mail@nielstenoever.net<mailto:mail@nielstenoever.net>>
Cc: 'Matthew Ford' <ford@isoc.org<mailto:ford@isoc.org>>;
'Mallory Knodel'
<mallory@article19.org<mailto:mallory@article19.org>>
Assunto: Intro to Network Self-determination
Dear all,
I have drafted a post as an introduction to my presentation on Network Self-determination
(at the bottom of this email).
Should you be interested in providing your feedback on this DRAFT, feel free to reply to
this email or to use the Etherpad or Googledoc below.
Googledoc here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15eHsqEC_gQip6NBTIpF-aMyg0DgVXxinr2wdYxh…
Etherpad here https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/NetworkSelf-determination
Feedback through live interactions during or after the presentation are also highly
appreciated ☺
The consolidated draft of the article will be published in the IETF Journal, right after
IETF 101. Obviously, all people having provided feedback will be duly acknowledged.
Many thanks and kind regards
Luca
NONFINAL DRAFT
Network Self-determination:
When building the Internet becomes a right
Luca Belli
Anyone reading this article would agree that the Internet and ICTs play an increasingly
essential role in every connected individual’s life. The accessibility and
well-functioning of network infrastructure at affordable and non-discriminatory conditions
facilitate significantly the full enjoyment of one’s fundamental rights, as Internet users
can easily access knowledge and education, conduct businesses by trading goods and
services online, and utilize digitized public services, spanning from tax-paying to
applying for public schools or receiving remote medical consultations via e-health.
As connected individuals, we can safely state that the Internet has become integral part
of our lives and our environment, affecting substantially how we form our opinions, how we
socialize and learn and, ultimately, what opportunities we are able to grasp over the
course of our lives. But what about the unconnected?
The current digital (r)evolution can also deepen divides in our societies, due to the
uneven distribution of digital dividends between those for which connectivity is available
and easily affordable and those who are either unconnected or face considerable challenges
to connect.[1]
This article briefly explores how groups of unconnected and scarcely connected individuals
can regain control over their digital futures, building their own community networks and
enjoying what I define as “Network Self-determination.”[2] I argue that Network
Self-determination leads to several positive externalities for the affected communities
while preserving the Internet as a decentralized, interoperable and generative network of
networks.
In this perspective, concrete examples of communities enjoying Network Self-determination
seem to prove that “the design and development of the Internet infrastructure have a
growing impact on society”[3] and can construct a digital environment that enables human
rights.
Mainstream networks are not so mainstream
In almost every country in the world, Internet connectivity predominantly relies on the
existence of network infrastructure built and managed by for-profit operators. Such
infrastructure is primarily composed of “mainstream networks,” which are those networks
that RFC 7962[4] characterizes as controlled in a top-down fashion by the operators;
spanning large areas; requiring a substantial investment to be built and maintained; and
not foreseeing the possibility for users to participate in the network’s governance.
Not surprisingly, mainstream networks are mainly deployed and operationalized in densely
populated areas, where return on investments can be quite fast and straightforward, due to
the high demand of connectivity by thousands – or millions – of city dwellers. The
situation, however, is not the same in rural areas or in the peripheries of major
metropolises, where the scarce density and lower standards of living cannot guarantee
immediate and sufficient return on investment for operators.
In rural and peripheral areas, which are home to the 48% of the world population that is
currently unconnected,[5] the sole reliance on mainstream networks does not prove to be an
effective strategy to expand connectivity. Indeed, the prospect of a missed return on
investment discourages development of infrastructure, leading to lack of coverage or to
such high prices and low quality of service that potential or existing users might be
discouraged from subscribing to available Internet-access offerings. In such context,
several studies have pointed out that the lack of competition can make Internet-access
offerings so prohibitively expensive that locals need to sacrifice food to afford
communications.[6]
Most importantly, individuals living in unconnected or scarcely connected areas may
rightfully fail to see the appeal of Internet access because any services or content that
would improve their welfare – such as local government services, information and
educational material in local languages and platforms making available local products and
services – are not available online.
Do-It-Yourself Internet
Despite the above scenario, many individuals living in unconnected or scarcely connected
communities have realized that Internet connectivity is a vector for many economic, social
and cultural opportunities and have taken action to stop being digitally-marginalized, due
to market failures and inefficient public policies, and start building their own community
networks, to become the protagonists of their digital futures.
Concretely, such reasoning has become possible thanks to the steady reduction in
infrastructure costs – particularly, regarding bandwidth and network equipment – that,
over the past decade, has facilitated the deployment of community networks with reasonably
low investments.
Community networks are crowdsourced initiatives. Described by RFC 7962 as “alternative
networks,” they are “networks that do not share the characteristics of mainstream network
deployments.” On the contrary, community networks are better characterized by the fact
that they are developed in a bottom-up fashion, in order to be utilized and managed by the
local community as commons. As stressed by the Declaration on Community Connectivity[7]
these networks are “structured to be open, free, and to respect network neutrality. Such
networks rely on the active participation of local communities in the design, development,
deployment, and management of shared infrastructure as a common resource, owned by the
community, and operated in a democratic fashion.”
Besides representing a viable solution to the limits of mainstream networks, community
networks also ensure that Internet traffic is managed with no commercially motivated
discrimination, thus respecting net neutrality[8] by default. Indeed, all network users
are partners in the provision of connectivity and in the development of services for the
local community, thus making it much more difficult that the provider – which is the
community itself – discriminate content, applications or services based on commercial
considerations.
These initiatives demonstrate that connectivity, openness, free choice and full enjoyment
of fundamental rights are not amenities reserved to opulent city-dwellers but basic needs
to which everyone is entitled and that everyone can and must enjoy. Moreover, they prove
that “connectivity increases the capacity for individuals to exercise their rights.”[9]
When the last mile becomes the first mile
Community networking evidences that, in many circumstances, the unconnected can connect
themselves, as longs as they have information on how to build[10] their network
infrastructure and the freedom to choose this option.
It is precisely in such perspective that an ample range of community networks emerged in
many diverse countries, going from the UK<https://b4rn.org.uk/> to
Argentina<http://www.altermundi.net/> and from
Brazil<http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/> to Spain<http://guifi.net/>t/>.
Broadband for the Rural North, or B4RN, which is pronounced “barn,” was initiated in 2011
by a group of farmers and a hairdresser in Lancashire, U.K., who decided to overcome the
lack of connectivity by starting self-installing fibre. Today the B4RN network connects 40
parishes and provides speeds as high as 1 gigabit per second.
The NGO AlterMundi,[11] which is behind QuintanaLibre, a community network in the
Argentinian province of Córdoba, prides itself on having successfully developed a
“geek-free” model to overcome the main challenges posed by rural environments, the
scarcity of engineers and reduced incomes, by developing an easy to implement and
cost-efficient network technology. Importantly, the availability of connectivity has
stimulated the development of several applications by the locals for the locals, including
an information portal, a chat service, a VoIP server, community radio streaming, a file
sharing system and gaming applications.
The AlterMundi-affiliated networks also provide Internet access to three schools, giving
students the opportunity to access online resources. Similarly, the Brazilian NGO
Coolab[12] provides connectivity and ICT training to dozen children through the Casa dos
Meninos project while connecting and entire village via the Fumaça community network, in
the Rio de Janeiro state.
The most successful example is Guifi.net that, besides being the biggest and the most
populated community network in the world with over 85,000 users, is particularly
outstanding for its common-pool-resource philosophy that favors the establishment of “a
disruptive economic model based on the commons model and the collaborative economy,”[13]
encouraging small, local entrants to develop new applications and to extend the network
themselves.[14] Indeed, Guifi.net members have generated a variety of services[15],
amongst which VoIP servers, IRC servers, videoconference and mail servers and broadcast
radios.
Importantly, besides expanding the Internet and promoting innovation in a decentralized
fashion, community networks like Guifi.net have created dozens of new jobs related to
network maintenance and entirely new digital ecosystems. Indeed community networking
generally features capacity-building programs for locals to acquire the skills they need
to be developers, creators and online entrepreneurs.
In this perspective, community networks, built by the people for the people,[16] should
not be considered as the last mile of the Internet but rather as the first mile, for they
have a vital role in maximizing the generative nature of the Internet, decentralizing
innovation and empowering the unconnected.
Network Self-determination
Examples of community networks show that these initiatives nurture the development of
community-tailored services, stimulating new opportunities for learning, trading and
employment for locals.
Hence, these initiatives provide a sound evidence base on which a right to “Network
Self-determination” can be constructed. I propose the concept of Network
Self-determination as the right to freely associate to define, in a democratic fashion,
the design, development and management of network infrastructure as a common good, in
order to freely seek, impart and receive information and innovation.
While community networking proves that Network Self-determination already exists de facto
even without being explicitly consecrated de jure, it is important to stress that this
concept is also solidly grounded in International human rights law.
The first article of both the Charter of the United Nations and the two International
Covenants of Human Rights decisively affirm that, by virtue of the fundamental right to
self-determination, all peoples are free to pursue their economic, social and cultural
development as well as self-organization. According to both Articles 1(3) of both
Covenants, all states have an obligation “to promote the realization of the right to
self-determination,” which is considered the collective right of a given community to
determine its own destiny.
Community networks foster Network Self-determination, for they allow individuals to decide
independently how to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, choosing
which kind of technology, applications and content are best suited to meet the needs of
the local community and using and developing them at the local level, in a
quintessentially distributed fashion. The goal of community networking is indeed to
empower individuals who will become new, active participants in the Internet, thus
enjoying the benefits of connectivity while contributing to the evolution the network of
networks as “a large, varied and evolving space of technology.”[17]
Rights, as technologies, are the product of history
The enjoyment of Network Self-determination through the development of community networks
can prompt several positive externalities, thus fostering a decentralised Internet and
allowing previously unconnected or scarcely connected individuals to access knowledge and
education, create new applications and find occupations, having access to the entire
spectrum of opportunities to which any individual should be entitled.
Enthusiasm and optimism regarding community networking should be tempered with a good dose
of pragmatism, though. Indeed, alternative networks should be seen as a valuable
complement to existing approaches rather than a silver bullet that can solve all
connectivity problems. Community networks require sound planning and good governance to be
successful and face many technical and policy obstacles over their path. In this
perspective, the IETF community should consider that Internet standards are vital to allow
the establishment, interoperability and, potentially, the federation of community
networks.
There is no doubt that Network Self-determination reinforces the distributed nature of the
Internet and there is no reason why individuals should not have the possibility to build
the Internet themselves, improving their standards of living while bridging digital
divides.
Communities around the globe are discovering they have the potential to create alternative
networks and many of them are already doing so. As the Italian philosopher Norberto Bobbio
famously argued, human rights are the product of historical evolutions.[18] In this
spirit, everyone should be free to enjoy Network Self-determination, associating and
building a new piece of the Internet.
[1] See http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016
[2] See Belli L. (2017). Network Self-Determination and the Positive Externalities of
Community Networks. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19924
[3] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[4] See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7962.txt
[5] See https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2017…
[6] See e.g. Rey-Moreno, C., Blignaut, R., May, J., & Tucker, W. D. (2016). An
in-depth study of the ICT ecosystem in a South African rural community: unveiling
expenditure and communication patterns. Information Technology for Development Vol. 22
(sup 1). Pp 101–120.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145<http://doi.org/10.1080/0268…
[7] See Declaration on Community Connectivity http://communityconnectivity.xyz/
[8] See http://www.networkneutrality.info/
[9] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[10] See https://commotionwireless.net/docs/cck/
[11] See http://altermundi.net/
[12] See http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/
[13] See https://guifi.net/en/what_is_guifinet
[14] See Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., Navarro L. (2015). Guifi.net, a Crowdsourced
Network Infrastructure Held in Common. In Computer Networks. N° 90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009
[15] A complete list of services developed by the Guifi.net community can be found at
https://guifi.net/en/node/3671/view/services
[16] See Belli L. (Ed.) (2017). Community networks: the Internet by the people, for the
people. Official Outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity. FGV
Direito Rio. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19401
[17] See RFC 1958 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958
[18] See Bobbio N. (1990). L'età dei diritti.
[FGV Direito Rio]
Luca Belli, PhD
Senior Researcher
Head of Internet Governance @ FGV<http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>
luca.belli@fgv.br<mailto:luca.belli@fgv.br>
+55 21 3799 5763
@1lucabelli<https://twitter.com/1lucabelli>
[http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]
________________________________
________________________________
[1] See http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016
[2] See Belli L. (2017). Network Self-Determination and the Positive Externalities of
Community Networks. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19924
[3] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[4] See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7962.txt
[5] See https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2017…
[6] See e.g. Rey-Moreno, C., Blignaut, R., May, J., & Tucker, W. D. (2016). An
in-depth study of the ICT ecosystem in a South African rural community: unveiling
expenditure and communication patterns. Information Technology for Development Vol. 22
(sup 1). Pp 101–120. http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145
[7] See Declaration on Community Connectivity http://communityconnectivity.xyz/
[8] See http://www.networkneutrality.info/
[9] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[10] See https://commotionwireless.net/docs/cck/
[11] See http://altermundi.net/
[12] See http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/
[13] See https://guifi.net/en/what_is_guifinet
[14] See Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., Navarro L. (2015). Guifi.net, a Crowdsourced
Network Infrastructure Held in Common. In Computer Networks. N° 90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009
[15] A complete list of services developed by the Guifi.net community can be found at
https://guifi.net/en/node/3671/view/services
[16] See Belli L. (Ed.) (2017). Community networks: the Internet by the people, for the
people. Official Outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity. FGV
Direito Rio. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19401
[17] See RFC 1958 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958
[18] See Bobbio N. (1990). L'età dei diritti.
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3@listas.altermundi.net<mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
3:20 p.m.
New subject: RES: Network Self-determination at IETF 101
Excellent.
G
Glenn McKnight
NARALO Secretariat
mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com
skype gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
289-830 6259
.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Luca Belli <luca.belli(a)fgv.br> wrote:
Hi Glenn,
Many thanks for the photographic evidence J
I have also just discovered that there is a video of the presentation,
available on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh5zM-CzCvI&t=6m58s
Have an excellent week
Luca
[image: FGV Direito Rio]
*Luca Belli, PhD*
*Senior Researcher *
*Head of **Internet Governance @ FGV <http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>*
luca.belli(a)fgv.br
+55 21 3799 *5763*
*@1lucabelli <https://twitter.com/1lucabelli>*
[image: http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]
*De:* dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.
altermundi.net] *Em nome de *Glenn McKnight
*Enviada em:* domingo, 8 de abril de 2018 10:45
*Para:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <
dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
*Assunto:* Re: [DC3] Network Self-determination at IETF 101
Hi
I sent you your pictures at the event.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157692283168192
G
Glenn McKnight
NARALO Secretariat
mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com
skype gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
289-830 6259
.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Luca Belli <luca.belli(a)fgv.br> wrote:
Dear all,
In case you will be at IETF 101, I would like to invite you to my
presentation on Network Self-determination on Thursday afternoon at 15:50.
I have also been asked to draft a brief article (that will be published on
the IETF journal) to provide an intro to the concept. Below the draft,
which is based on my paper on network self-determination
<https://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19924> and cites
many initiatives developed by DC3 members over the past years.
Any feedback – possibly, before next week – is more than welcome and will
be acknowledged in the final version.
Hope to see some of you on Thursday
All the best
Luca
*De:* Luca Belli
*Enviada em:* sexta-feira, 16 de março de 2018 18:49
*Para:* 'Hrpc' <hrpc(a)irtf.org>rg>; 'Niels ten Oever'
<mail(a)nielstenoever.net>
*Cc:* 'Matthew Ford' <ford(a)isoc.org>rg>; 'Mallory Knodel' <
mallory(a)article19.org>
*Assunto:* Intro to Network Self-determination
Dear all,
I have drafted a post as an introduction to my presentation on Network
Self-determination (at the bottom of this email).
Should you be interested in providing your feedback on this DRAFT, feel
free to reply to this email or to use the Etherpad or Googledoc below.
Googledoc here https://docs.google.com/document/d/15eHsqEC_gQip6NBTIpF-
aMyg0DgVXxinr2wdYxhxTXQ/edit#
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/15eHsqEC_gQip6NBTIpF-aMyg0DgVXxinr2wdYxhxTXQ/edit>
Etherpad here https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/NetworkSelf-
determination
Feedback through live interactions during or after the presentation are
also highly appreciated J
The consolidated draft of the article will be published in the IETF
Journal, right after IETF 101. Obviously, all people having provided
feedback will be duly acknowledged.
Many thanks and kind regards
Luca
*NONFINAL DRAFT*
*Network Self-determination:*
*When building the Internet becomes a right*
*Luca Belli*
Anyone reading this article would agree that the Internet and ICTs play an
increasingly essential role in every *connected* individual’s life. The
accessibility and well-functioning of network infrastructure at affordable
and non-discriminatory conditions facilitate significantly the full
enjoyment of one’s fundamental rights, as Internet users can easily access
knowledge and education, conduct businesses by trading goods and services
online, and utilize digitized public services, spanning from tax-paying to
applying for public schools or receiving remote medical consultations via
e-health.
As connected individuals, we can safely state that the Internet has become
integral part of our lives and our environment, affecting substantially how
we form our opinions, how we socialize and learn and, ultimately, what
opportunities we are able to grasp over the course of our lives. But what
about the unconnected?
The current digital (r)evolution can also deepen divides in our societies,
due to the uneven distribution of digital dividends between those for which
connectivity is available and easily affordable and those who are either
unconnected or face considerable challenges to connect.[1]
<#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn1>
This article briefly explores how groups of unconnected and scarcely
connected individuals can regain control over their digital futures,
building their own community networks and enjoying what I define as
“Network Self-determination.”[2]
<#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn2> I argue that Network
Self-determination leads to several positive externalities for the affected
communities while preserving the Internet as a decentralized, interoperable
and generative network of networks.
In this perspective, concrete examples of communities enjoying Network
Self-determination seem to prove that “the design and development of the
Internet infrastructure have a growing impact on society”[3]
<#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn3> and can construct a
digital environment that enables human rights.
*Mainstream networks are not so mainstream*
In almost every country in the world, Internet connectivity predominantly
relies on the existence of network infrastructure built and managed by
for-profit operators. Such infrastructure is primarily composed of
“mainstream networks,” which are those networks that RFC 7962[4]
<#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn4> characterizes as
controlled in a top-down fashion by the operators; spanning large areas;
requiring a substantial investment to be built and maintained; and not
foreseeing the possibility for users to participate in the network’s
governance.
Not surprisingly, mainstream networks are mainly deployed and
operationalized in densely populated areas, where return on investments can
be quite fast and straightforward, due to the high demand of connectivity
by thousands – or millions – of city dwellers. The situation, however, is
not the same in rural areas or in the peripheries of major metropolises,
where the scarce density and lower standards of living cannot guarantee
immediate and sufficient return on investment for operators.
In rural and peripheral areas, which are home to the 48% of the world
population that is currently unconnected,[5]
<#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn5> the sole reliance on
mainstream networks does not prove to be an effective strategy to expand
connectivity. Indeed, the prospect of a missed return on investment
discourages development of infrastructure, leading to lack of coverage or
to such high prices and low quality of service that potential or existing
users might be discouraged from subscribing to available Internet-access
offerings. In such context, several studies have pointed out that the lack
of competition can make Internet-access offerings so prohibitively
expensive that locals need to sacrifice food to afford communications.[6]
<#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn6>
Most importantly, individuals living in unconnected or scarcely connected
areas may rightfully fail to see the appeal of Internet access because any
services or content that would improve their welfare – such as local
government services, information and educational material in local
languages and platforms making available local products and services – are
not available online.
*Do-It-Yourself Internet *
Despite the above scenario, many individuals living in unconnected or
scarcely connected communities have realized that Internet connectivity is
a vector for many economic, social and cultural opportunities and have
taken action to stop being digitally-marginalized, due to market failures
and inefficient public policies, and start building their own community
networks, to become the protagonists of their digital futures.
Concretely, such reasoning has become possible thanks to the steady
reduction in infrastructure costs – particularly, regarding bandwidth and
network equipment – that, over the past decade, has facilitated the
deployment of community networks with reasonably low investments.
Community networks are crowdsourced initiatives. Described by RFC 7962 as
“alternative networks,” they are “networks that do not share the
characteristics of mainstream network deployments.” On the contrary,
community networks are better characterized by the fact that they are
developed in a bottom-up fashion, in order to be utilized and managed by
the local community as commons. As stressed by the Declaration on Community
Connectivity[7] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn7>
these networks are “structured to be open, free, and to respect network
neutrality. Such networks rely on the active participation of local
communities in the design, development, deployment, and management of
shared infrastructure as a common resource, owned by the community, and
operated in a democratic fashion.”
Besides representing a viable solution to the limits of mainstream
networks, community networks also ensure that Internet traffic is managed
with no commercially motivated discrimination, thus respecting net
neutrality[8] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn8> by
default. Indeed, all network users are partners in the provision of
connectivity and in the development of services for the local community,
thus making it much more difficult that the provider – which is the
community itself – discriminate content, applications or services based on
commercial considerations.
These initiatives demonstrate that connectivity, openness, free choice and
full enjoyment of fundamental rights are not amenities reserved to opulent
city-dwellers but basic needs to which everyone is entitled and that
everyone can and must enjoy. Moreover, they prove that “connectivity
increases the capacity for individuals to exercise their rights.”[9]
<#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn9>
*When the last mile becomes the first mile *
Community networking evidences that, in many circumstances, the
unconnected can connect themselves, as longs as they have information on
how to build[10] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn10>
their network infrastructure and the freedom to choose this option.
It is precisely in such perspective that an ample range of community
networks emerged in many diverse countries, going from the UK
<https://b4rn.org.uk/> to Argentina <http://www.altermundi.net/> and from
Brazil <http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/> to Spain <http://guifi.net/>.
Broadband for the Rural North, or B4RN, which is pronounced “barn,” was
initiated in 2011 by a group of farmers and a hairdresser in Lancashire,
U.K., who decided to overcome the lack of connectivity by starting
self-installing fibre. Today the B4RN network connects 40 parishes and
provides speeds as high as 1 gigabit per second.
The NGO AlterMundi,[11]
<#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn11> which is behind
QuintanaLibre, a community network in the Argentinian province of Córdoba,
prides itself on having successfully developed a “geek-free” model to
overcome the main challenges posed by rural environments, the scarcity of
engineers and reduced incomes, by developing an easy to implement and
cost-efficient network technology. Importantly, the availability of
connectivity has stimulated the development of several applications by the
locals for the locals, including an information portal, a chat service, a
VoIP server, community radio streaming, a file sharing system and gaming
applications.
The AlterMundi-affiliated networks also provide Internet access to three
schools, giving students the opportunity to access online resources.
Similarly, the Brazilian NGO Coolab[12]
<#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn12> provides
connectivity and ICT training to dozen children through the *Casa dos
Meninos* project while connecting and entire village via the Fumaça
community network, in the Rio de Janeiro state.
The most successful example is Guifi.net that, besides being the biggest
and the most populated community network in the world with over 85,000
users, is particularly outstanding for its common-pool-resource philosophy
that favors the establishment of “a disruptive economic model based on the
commons model and the collaborative economy,”[13]
<#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn13> encouraging small,
local entrants to develop new applications and to extend the network
themselves.[14] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn14>
Indeed, Guifi.net members have generated a variety of services[15]
<#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn15>, amongst which VoIP
servers, IRC servers, videoconference and mail servers and broadcast radios.
Importantly, besides expanding the Internet and promoting innovation in a
decentralized fashion, community networks like Guifi.net have created
dozens of new jobs related to network maintenance and entirely new digital
ecosystems. Indeed community networking generally features
capacity-building programs for locals to acquire the skills they need to be
developers, creators and online entrepreneurs.
In this perspective, community networks, built by the people for the
people,[16] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn16> should
not be considered as the last mile of the Internet but rather as the first
mile, for they have a vital role in maximizing the generative nature of the
Internet, decentralizing innovation and empowering the unconnected.
*Network Self-determination*
Examples of community networks show that these initiatives nurture the
development of community-tailored services, stimulating new opportunities
for learning, trading and employment for locals.
Hence, these initiatives provide a sound evidence base on which a right to
“Network Self-determination” can be constructed. I propose the concept of
Network Self-determination as the right to freely associate to define, in a
democratic fashion, the design, development and management of network
infrastructure as a common good, in order to freely seek, impart and
receive information and innovation.
While community networking proves that Network Self-determination already
exists *de facto* even without being explicitly consecrated* de jure*, it
is important to stress that this concept is also solidly grounded in
International human rights law.
The first article of both the Charter of the United Nations and the two
International Covenants of Human Rights decisively affirm that, by virtue
of the fundamental right to self-determination, all peoples are free to
pursue their economic, social and cultural development as well as
self-organization. According to both Articles 1(3) of both Covenants, all
states have an obligation “to promote the realization of the right to
self-determination,” which is considered the collective right of a given
community to determine its own destiny.
Community networks foster Network Self-determination, for they allow
individuals to decide independently how to pursue their economic, social
and cultural development, choosing which kind of technology, applications
and content are best suited to meet the needs of the local community and
using and developing them at the local level, in a quintessentially
distributed fashion. The goal of community networking is indeed to empower
individuals who will become new, active participants in the Internet, thus
enjoying the benefits of connectivity while contributing to the evolution
the network of networks as “a large, varied and evolving space of
technology.”[17] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn17>
*Rights, as technologies, are the product of history *
The enjoyment of Network Self-determination through the development of
community networks can prompt several positive externalities, thus
fostering a decentralised Internet and allowing previously unconnected or
scarcely connected individuals to access knowledge and education, create
new applications and find occupations, having access to the entire spectrum
of opportunities to which any individual should be entitled.
Enthusiasm and optimism regarding community networking should be tempered
with a good dose of pragmatism, though. Indeed, alternative networks should
be seen as a valuable complement to existing approaches rather than a
silver bullet that can solve all connectivity problems. Community networks
require sound planning and good governance to be successful and face many
technical and policy obstacles over their path. In this perspective, the
IETF community should consider that Internet standards are vital to allow
the establishment, interoperability and, potentially, the federation of
community networks.
There is no doubt that Network Self-determination reinforces the
distributed nature of the Internet and there is no reason why individuals
should not have the possibility to build the Internet themselves, improving
their standards of living while bridging digital divides.
Communities around the globe are discovering they have the potential to
create alternative networks and many of them are already doing so. As the
Italian philosopher Norberto Bobbio famously argued, human rights are the
product of historical evolutions.[18
<#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn18>] In this spirit,
everyone should be free to enjoy Network Self-determination, associating
and building a new piece of the Internet.
[1] See http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016
[2] See Belli L. (2017). Network Self-Determination and the Positive
Externalities of Community Networks. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.
br/dspace/handle/10438/19924
[3] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[4] See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7962.txt
[5] See https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/
ICTFactsFigures2017.pdf
[6] See e.g. Rey-Moreno, C., Blignaut, R., May, J., & Tucker, W. D.
(2016). An in-depth study of the ICT ecosystem in a South African rural
community: unveiling expenditure and communication patterns. Information
Technology for Development Vol. 22 (sup 1). Pp 101–120.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145
<http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145>
[7] See Declaration on Community Connectivity
http://communityconnectivity.xyz/
[8] See http://www.networkneutrality.info/
[9] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[10] See https://commotionwireless.net/docs/cck/
[11] See http://altermundi.net/
[12] See http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/
[13] See https://guifi.net/en/what_is_guifinet
[14] See Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., Navarro L. (2015). Guifi.net, a
Crowdsourced Network Infrastructure Held in Common. In Computer Networks.
N° 90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009
[15] A complete list of services developed by the Guifi.net community can
be found at https://guifi.net/en/node/3671/view/services
[16] See Belli L. (Ed.) (2017). Community networks: the Internet by the
people, for the people. Official Outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on
Community Connectivity. FGV Direito Rio. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.
br/dspace/handle/10438/19401
[17] See RFC 1958 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958
[18] See Bobbio N. (1990). L'età dei diritti.
[image: FGV Direito Rio]
*Luca Belli, PhD*
*Senior Researcher *
*Head of **Internet Governance @ FGV <http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>*
luca.belli(a)fgv.br
+55 21 3799 *5763*
*@1lucabelli <https://twitter.com/1lucabelli>*
[image: http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]
------------------------------
------------------------------
[1] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref1> See
http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016
[2] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref2> See Belli L.
(2017). Network Self-Determination and the Positive Externalities of
Community Networks. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.
br/dspace/handle/10438/19924
[3] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref3> See RFC 8280
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[4] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref4> See
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7962.txt
[5] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref5> See
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/
ICTFactsFigures2017.pdf
[6] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref6> See e.g.
Rey-Moreno, C., Blignaut, R., May, J., & Tucker, W. D. (2016). An in-depth
study of the ICT ecosystem in a South African rural community: unveiling
expenditure and communication patterns. Information Technology for
Development Vol. 22 (sup 1). Pp 101–120. http://doi.org/10.1080/
02681102.2016.1155145
[7] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref7> See
Declaration on Community Connectivity http://communityconnectivity.xyz/
[8] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref8> See
http://www.networkneutrality.info/
[9] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref9> See RFC 8280
https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[10] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref10> See
https://commotionwireless.net/docs/cck/
[11] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref11> See
http://altermundi.net/
[12] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref12> See
http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/
[13] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref13> See
https://guifi.net/en/what_is_guifinet
[14] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref14> See Baig,
R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., Navarro L. (2015). Guifi.net, a Crowdsourced
Network Infrastructure Held in Common. In Computer Networks. N° 90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009
[15] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref15> A complete
list of services developed by the Guifi.net community can be found at
https://guifi.net/en/node/3671/view/services
[16] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref16> See Belli
L. (Ed.) (2017). Community networks: the Internet by the people, for the
people. Official Outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community
Connectivity. FGV Direito Rio. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.
br/dspace/handle/10438/19401
[1 <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref17>7] See RFC
1958 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958
[18] <#m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref18> See Bobbio
N. (1990). L'età dei diritti.
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
3:27 p.m.
New subject: RES: Network Self-determination at IETF 101
I shared the video on the ISOC Chat list on SKYPE
G
Glenn McKnight
NARALO Secretariat
mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com
skype gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
289-830 6259
.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Excellent.
G
Glenn McKnight
NARALO Secretariat
mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com
skype gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
289-830 6259
.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Luca Belli <luca.belli(a)fgv.br> wrote:
Hi Glenn,
Many thanks for the photographic evidence J
I have also just discovered that there is a video of the presentation,
available on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh5zM-CzCvI&t=6m58s
Have an excellent week
Luca
[image: FGV Direito Rio]
*Luca Belli, PhD*
*Senior Researcher *
*Head of **Internet Governance @ FGV
<http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>*
luca.belli(a)fgv.br
+55 21 3799 *5763*
*@1lucabelli <https://twitter.com/1lucabelli>*
[image: http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]
*De:* dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.alt
ermundi.net] *Em nome de *Glenn McKnight
*Enviada em:* domingo, 8 de abril de 2018 10:45
*Para:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <
dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
*Assunto:* Re: [DC3] Network Self-determination at IETF 101
Hi
I sent you your pictures at the event.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157692283168192
G
Glenn McKnight
NARALO Secretariat
mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com
skype gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
289-830 6259
.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Luca Belli <luca.belli(a)fgv.br> wrote:
Dear all,
In case you will be at IETF 101, I would like to invite you to my
presentation on Network Self-determination on Thursday afternoon at 15:50.
I have also been asked to draft a brief article (that will be published
on the IETF journal) to provide an intro to the concept. Below the draft,
which is based on my paper on network self-determination
<https://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19924> and cites
many initiatives developed by DC3 members over the past years.
Any feedback – possibly, before next week – is more than welcome and will
be acknowledged in the final version.
Hope to see some of you on Thursday
All the best
Luca
*De:* Luca Belli
*Enviada em:* sexta-feira, 16 de março de 2018 18:49
*Para:* 'Hrpc' <hrpc(a)irtf.org>rg>; 'Niels ten Oever'
<mail(a)nielstenoever.net
*Cc:* 'Matthew Ford'
<ford(a)isoc.org>rg>; 'Mallory Knodel' <
mallory(a)article19.org>
*Assunto:* Intro to Network Self-determination
Dear all,
I have drafted a post as an introduction to my presentation on Network
Self-determination (at the bottom of this email).
Should you be interested in providing your feedback on this DRAFT, feel
free to reply to this email or to use the Etherpad or Googledoc below.
Googledoc here https://docs.google.com/docume
nt/d/15eHsqEC_gQip6NBTIpF-aMyg0DgVXxinr2wdYxhxTXQ/edit#
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/15eHsqEC_gQip6NBTIpF-aMyg0DgVXxinr2wdYxhxTXQ/edit>
Etherpad here https://public.etherpad-mozil
la.org/p/NetworkSelf-determination
Feedback through live interactions during or after the presentation are
also highly appreciated J
The consolidated draft of the article will be published in the IETF
Journal, right after IETF 101. Obviously, all people having provided
feedback will be duly acknowledged.
Many thanks and kind regards
Luca
*NONFINAL DRAFT*
*Network Self-determination:*
*When building the Internet becomes a right*
*Luca Belli*
Anyone reading this article would agree that the Internet and ICTs play
an increasingly essential role in every *connected* individual’s life.
The accessibility and well-functioning of network infrastructure at
affordable and non-discriminatory conditions facilitate significantly the
full enjoyment of one’s fundamental rights, as Internet users can easily
access knowledge and education, conduct businesses by trading goods and
services online, and utilize digitized public services, spanning from
tax-paying to applying for public schools or receiving remote medical
consultations via e-health.
As connected individuals, we can safely state that the Internet has
become integral part of our lives and our environment, affecting
substantially how we form our opinions, how we socialize and learn and,
ultimately, what opportunities we are able to grasp over the course of our
lives. But what about the unconnected?
The current digital (r)evolution can also deepen divides in our
societies, due to the uneven distribution of digital dividends between
those for which connectivity is available and easily affordable and those
who are either unconnected or face considerable challenges to connect.[1]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn1>
This article briefly explores how groups of unconnected and scarcely
connected individuals can regain control over their digital futures,
building their own community networks and enjoying what I define as
“Network Self-determination.”[2]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn2>
I argue that Network Self-determination leads to several positive
externalities for the affected communities while preserving the Internet as
a decentralized, interoperable and generative network of networks.
In this perspective, concrete examples of communities enjoying Network
Self-determination seem to prove that “the design and development of the
Internet infrastructure have a growing impact on society”[3]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn3>
and can construct a digital environment that enables human rights.
*Mainstream networks are not so mainstream*
In almost every country in the world, Internet connectivity predominantly
relies on the existence of network infrastructure built and managed by
for-profit operators. Such infrastructure is primarily composed of
“mainstream networks,” which are those networks that RFC 7962[4]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn4>
characterizes
as controlled in a top-down fashion by the operators; spanning large areas;
requiring a substantial investment to be built and maintained; and not
foreseeing the possibility for users to participate in the network’s
governance.
Not surprisingly, mainstream networks are mainly deployed and
operationalized in densely populated areas, where return on investments can
be quite fast and straightforward, due to the high demand of connectivity
by thousands – or millions – of city dwellers. The situation, however, is
not the same in rural areas or in the peripheries of major metropolises,
where the scarce density and lower standards of living cannot guarantee
immediate and sufficient return on investment for operators.
In rural and peripheral areas, which are home to the 48% of the world
population that is currently unconnected,[5]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn5>
the sole reliance on mainstream networks does not prove to be an effective
strategy to expand connectivity. Indeed, the prospect of a missed return on
investment discourages development of infrastructure, leading to lack of
coverage or to such high prices and low quality of service that potential
or existing users might be discouraged from subscribing to available
Internet-access offerings. In such context, several studies have pointed
out that the lack of competition can make Internet-access offerings so
prohibitively expensive that locals need to sacrifice food to afford
communications.[6]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn6>
Most importantly, individuals living in unconnected or scarcely connected
areas may rightfully fail to see the appeal of Internet access because any
services or content that would improve their welfare – such as local
government services, information and educational material in local
languages and platforms making available local products and services – are
not available online.
*Do-It-Yourself Internet *
Despite the above scenario, many individuals living in unconnected or
scarcely connected communities have realized that Internet connectivity is
a vector for many economic, social and cultural opportunities and have
taken action to stop being digitally-marginalized, due to market failures
and inefficient public policies, and start building their own community
networks, to become the protagonists of their digital futures.
Concretely, such reasoning has become possible thanks to the steady
reduction in infrastructure costs – particularly, regarding bandwidth and
network equipment – that, over the past decade, has facilitated the
deployment of community networks with reasonably low investments.
Community networks are crowdsourced initiatives. Described by RFC 7962 as
“alternative networks,” they are “networks that do not share the
characteristics of mainstream network deployments.” On the contrary,
community networks are better characterized by the fact that they are
developed in a bottom-up fashion, in order to be utilized and managed by
the local community as commons. As stressed by the Declaration on Community
Connectivity[7]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn7>
these networks are “structured to be open, free, and to respect network
neutrality. Such networks rely on the active participation of local
communities in the design, development, deployment, and management of
shared infrastructure as a common resource, owned by the community, and
operated in a democratic fashion.”
Besides representing a viable solution to the limits of mainstream
networks, community networks also ensure that Internet traffic is managed
with no commercially motivated discrimination, thus respecting net
neutrality[8]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn8>
by default. Indeed, all network users are partners in the provision of
connectivity and in the development of services for the local community,
thus making it much more difficult that the provider – which is the
community itself – discriminate content, applications or services based on
commercial considerations.
These initiatives demonstrate that connectivity, openness, free choice
and full enjoyment of fundamental rights are not amenities reserved to
opulent city-dwellers but basic needs to which everyone is entitled and
that everyone can and must enjoy. Moreover, they prove that “connectivity
increases the capacity for individuals to exercise their rights.”[9]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn9>
*When the last mile becomes the first mile *
Community networking evidences that, in many circumstances, the
unconnected can connect themselves, as longs as they have information on
how to build[10]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn10>
their network infrastructure and the freedom to choose this option.
It is precisely in such perspective that an ample range of community
networks emerged in many diverse countries, going from the UK
<https://b4rn.org.uk/> to Argentina <http://www.altermundi.net/> and
from Brazil <http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/> to Spain
<http://guifi.net/>.
Broadband for the Rural North, or B4RN, which is pronounced “barn,” was
initiated in 2011 by a group of farmers and a hairdresser in Lancashire,
U.K., who decided to overcome the lack of connectivity by starting
self-installing fibre. Today the B4RN network connects 40 parishes and
provides speeds as high as 1 gigabit per second.
The NGO AlterMundi,[11]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn11>
which is behind QuintanaLibre, a community network in the Argentinian
province of Córdoba, prides itself on having successfully developed a
“geek-free” model to overcome the main challenges posed by rural
environments, the scarcity of engineers and reduced incomes, by developing
an easy to implement and cost-efficient network technology. Importantly,
the availability of connectivity has stimulated the development of several
applications by the locals for the locals, including an information portal,
a chat service, a VoIP server, community radio streaming, a file sharing
system and gaming applications.
The AlterMundi-affiliated networks also provide Internet access to three
schools, giving students the opportunity to access online resources.
Similarly, the Brazilian NGO Coolab[12]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn12>
provides
connectivity and ICT training to dozen children through the *Casa dos
Meninos* project while connecting and entire village via the Fumaça
community network, in the Rio de Janeiro state.
The most successful example is Guifi.net that, besides being the biggest
and the most populated community network in the world with over 85,000
users, is particularly outstanding for its common-pool-resource philosophy
that favors the establishment of “a disruptive economic model based on the
commons model and the collaborative economy,”[13]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn13>
encouraging small, local entrants to develop new applications and to extend
the network themselves.[14]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn14>
Indeed, Guifi.net members have generated a variety of services[15]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn15>,
amongst which VoIP servers, IRC servers, videoconference and mail
servers and broadcast radios.
Importantly, besides expanding the Internet and promoting innovation in a
decentralized fashion, community networks like Guifi.net have created
dozens of new jobs related to network maintenance and entirely new digital
ecosystems. Indeed community networking generally features
capacity-building programs for locals to acquire the skills they need to be
developers, creators and online entrepreneurs.
In this perspective, community networks, built by the people for the
people,[16]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn16>
should not be considered as the last mile of the Internet but rather as the
first mile, for they have a vital role in maximizing the generative nature
of the Internet, decentralizing innovation and empowering the unconnected.
*Network Self-determination*
Examples of community networks show that these initiatives nurture the
development of community-tailored services, stimulating new opportunities
for learning, trading and employment for locals.
Hence, these initiatives provide a sound evidence base on which a right
to “Network Self-determination” can be constructed. I propose the concept
of Network Self-determination as the right to freely associate to define,
in a democratic fashion, the design, development and management of network
infrastructure as a common good, in order to freely seek, impart and
receive information and innovation.
While community networking proves that Network Self-determination already
exists *de facto* even without being explicitly consecrated* de jure*,
it is important to stress that this concept is also solidly grounded in
International human rights law.
The first article of both the Charter of the United Nations and the two
International Covenants of Human Rights decisively affirm that, by virtue
of the fundamental right to self-determination, all peoples are free to
pursue their economic, social and cultural development as well as
self-organization. According to both Articles 1(3) of both Covenants, all
states have an obligation “to promote the realization of the right to
self-determination,” which is considered the collective right of a given
community to determine its own destiny.
Community networks foster Network Self-determination, for they allow
individuals to decide independently how to pursue their economic, social
and cultural development, choosing which kind of technology, applications
and content are best suited to meet the needs of the local community and
using and developing them at the local level, in a quintessentially
distributed fashion. The goal of community networking is indeed to empower
individuals who will become new, active participants in the Internet, thus
enjoying the benefits of connectivity while contributing to the evolution
the network of networks as “a large, varied and evolving space of
technology.”[17]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn17>
*Rights, as technologies, are the product of history *
The enjoyment of Network Self-determination through the development of
community networks can prompt several positive externalities, thus
fostering a decentralised Internet and allowing previously unconnected or
scarcely connected individuals to access knowledge and education, create
new applications and find occupations, having access to the entire spectrum
of opportunities to which any individual should be entitled.
Enthusiasm and optimism regarding community networking should be tempered
with a good dose of pragmatism, though. Indeed, alternative networks should
be seen as a valuable complement to existing approaches rather than a
silver bullet that can solve all connectivity problems. Community networks
require sound planning and good governance to be successful and face many
technical and policy obstacles over their path. In this perspective, the
IETF community should consider that Internet standards are vital to allow
the establishment, interoperability and, potentially, the federation of
community networks.
There is no doubt that Network Self-determination reinforces the
distributed nature of the Internet and there is no reason why individuals
should not have the possibility to build the Internet themselves, improving
their standards of living while bridging digital divides.
Communities around the globe are discovering they have the potential to
create alternative networks and many of them are already doing so. As the
Italian philosopher Norberto Bobbio famously argued, human rights are the
product of historical evolutions.[18
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn18>
] In this spirit, everyone should be free to enjoy Network
Self-determination, associating and building a new piece of the Internet.
[1] See http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016
[2] See Belli L. (2017). Network Self-Determination and the Positive
Externalities of Community Networks. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.b
r/dspace/handle/10438/19924
[3] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[4] See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7962.txt
[5] See https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTF
actsFigures2017.pdf
[6] See e.g. Rey-Moreno, C., Blignaut, R., May, J., & Tucker, W. D.
(2016). An in-depth study of the ICT ecosystem in a South African rural
community: unveiling expenditure and communication patterns. Information
Technology for Development Vol. 22 (sup 1). Pp 101–120.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145
<http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145>
[7] See Declaration on Community Connectivity
http://communityconnectivity.xyz/
[8] See http://www.networkneutrality.info/
[9] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[10] See https://commotionwireless.net/docs/cck/
[11] See http://altermundi.net/
[12] See http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/
[13] See https://guifi.net/en/what_is_guifinet
[14] See Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., Navarro L. (2015). Guifi.net, a
Crowdsourced Network Infrastructure Held in Common. In Computer Networks.
N° 90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009
[15] A complete list of services developed by the Guifi.net community
can be found at https://guifi.net/en/node/3671/view/services
[16] See Belli L. (Ed.) (2017). Community networks: the Internet by the
people, for the people. Official Outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on
Community Connectivity. FGV Direito Rio. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.b
r/dspace/handle/10438/19401
[17] See RFC 1958 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958
[18] See Bobbio N. (1990). L'età dei diritti.
[image: FGV Direito Rio]
*Luca Belli, PhD*
*Senior Researcher *
*Head of **Internet Governance @ FGV
<http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>*
luca.belli(a)fgv.br
+55 21 3799 *5763*
*@1lucabelli <https://twitter.com/1lucabelli>*
[image: http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]
------------------------------
------------------------------
[1]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref1>
See http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016
[2]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref2>
See Belli L. (2017). Network Self-Determination and the Positive
Externalities of Community Networks. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.b
r/dspace/handle/10438/19924
[3]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref3>
See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[4]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref4>
See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7962.txt
[5]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref5>
See https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTF
actsFigures2017.pdf
[6]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref6>
See e.g. Rey-Moreno, C., Blignaut, R., May, J., & Tucker, W. D. (2016). An
in-depth study of the ICT ecosystem in a South African rural community:
unveiling expenditure and communication patterns. Information Technology
for Development Vol. 22 (sup 1). Pp 101–120.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145
[7]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref7>
See Declaration on Community Connectivity http://communityconnectivity.x
yz/
[8]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref8>
See http://www.networkneutrality.info/
[9]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref9>
See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[10]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref10>
See https://commotionwireless.net/docs/cck/
[11]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref11>
See http://altermundi.net/
[12]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref12>
See http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/
[13]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref13> See
https://guifi.net/en/what_is_guifinet
[14]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref14> See
Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., Navarro L. (2015). Guifi.net, a
Crowdsourced Network Infrastructure Held in Common. In Computer Networks.
N° 90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009
[15]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref15>
A complete list of services developed by the Guifi.net community can be
found at https://guifi.net/en/node/3671/view/services
[16]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref16>
See Belli L. (Ed.) (2017). Community networks: the Internet by the people,
for the people. Official Outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on
Community Connectivity. FGV Direito Rio. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.b
r/dspace/handle/10438/19401
[1
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref17>
7] See RFC 1958 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958
[18]
<#m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref18>
See Bobbio N. (1990). L'età dei diritti.
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
3:30 p.m.
New subject: RES: Network Self-determination at IETF 101
I will be at the Creative Commons in Toronto later this week. Is anyone
from your group doing a presentation?
Glenn
Glenn McKnight
NARALO Secretariat
mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com
skype gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
289-830 6259
.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:27 AM, Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I shared the video on the ISOC Chat list on SKYPE
G
Glenn McKnight
NARALO Secretariat
mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com
skype gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
289-830 6259
.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Excellent.
G
Glenn McKnight
NARALO Secretariat
mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com
skype gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
289-830 6259
.
On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:51 AM, Luca Belli <luca.belli(a)fgv.br> wrote:
Hi Glenn,
Many thanks for the photographic evidence J
I have also just discovered that there is a video of the presentation,
available on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh5zM-CzCvI&t=6m58s
Have an excellent week
Luca
[image: FGV Direito Rio]
*Luca Belli, PhD*
*Senior Researcher *
*Head of **Internet Governance @ FGV
<http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>*
luca.belli(a)fgv.br
+55 21 3799 *5763*
*@1lucabelli <https://twitter.com/1lucabelli>*
[image: http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]
*De:* dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.alt
ermundi.net] *Em nome de *Glenn McKnight
*Enviada em:* domingo, 8 de abril de 2018 10:45
*Para:* Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <
dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
*Assunto:* Re: [DC3] Network Self-determination at IETF 101
Hi
I sent you your pictures at the event.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157692283168192
G
Glenn McKnight
NARALO Secretariat
mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com
skype gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
289-830 6259
.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:26 AM, Luca Belli <luca.belli(a)fgv.br> wrote:
Dear all,
In case you will be at IETF 101, I would like to invite you to my
presentation on Network Self-determination on Thursday afternoon at 15:50.
I have also been asked to draft a brief article (that will be published
on the IETF journal) to provide an intro to the concept. Below the draft,
which is based on my paper on network self-determination
<https://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/19924> and cites
many initiatives developed by DC3 members over the past years.
Any feedback – possibly, before next week – is more than welcome and
will be acknowledged in the final version.
Hope to see some of you on Thursday
All the best
Luca
*De:* Luca Belli
*Enviada em:* sexta-feira, 16 de março de 2018 18:49
*Para:* 'Hrpc' <hrpc(a)irtf.org>rg>; 'Niels ten Oever' <
mail(a)nielstenoever.net>
*Cc:* 'Matthew Ford' <ford(a)isoc.org>rg>; 'Mallory Knodel' <
mallory(a)article19.org>
*Assunto:* Intro to Network Self-determination
Dear all,
I have drafted a post as an introduction to my presentation on Network
Self-determination (at the bottom of this email).
Should you be interested in providing your feedback on this DRAFT, feel
free to reply to this email or to use the Etherpad or Googledoc below.
Googledoc here https://docs.google.com/docume
nt/d/15eHsqEC_gQip6NBTIpF-aMyg0DgVXxinr2wdYxhxTXQ/edit#
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/15eHsqEC_gQip6NBTIpF-aMyg0DgVXxinr2wdYxhxTXQ/edit>
Etherpad here https://public.etherpad-mozil
la.org/p/NetworkSelf-determination
Feedback through live interactions during or after the presentation are
also highly appreciated J
The consolidated draft of the article will be published in the IETF
Journal, right after IETF 101. Obviously, all people having provided
feedback will be duly acknowledged.
Many thanks and kind regards
Luca
*NONFINAL DRAFT*
*Network Self-determination:*
*When building the Internet becomes a right*
*Luca Belli*
Anyone reading this article would agree that the Internet and ICTs play
an increasingly essential role in every *connected* individual’s life.
The accessibility and well-functioning of network infrastructure at
affordable and non-discriminatory conditions facilitate significantly the
full enjoyment of one’s fundamental rights, as Internet users can easily
access knowledge and education, conduct businesses by trading goods and
services online, and utilize digitized public services, spanning from
tax-paying to applying for public schools or receiving remote medical
consultations via e-health.
As connected individuals, we can safely state that the Internet has
become integral part of our lives and our environment, affecting
substantially how we form our opinions, how we socialize and learn and,
ultimately, what opportunities we are able to grasp over the course of our
lives. But what about the unconnected?
The current digital (r)evolution can also deepen divides in our
societies, due to the uneven distribution of digital dividends between
those for which connectivity is available and easily affordable and those
who are either unconnected or face considerable challenges to connect.
[1]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn1>
This article briefly explores how groups of unconnected and scarcely
connected individuals can regain control over their digital futures,
building their own community networks and enjoying what I define as
“Network Self-determination.”[2]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn2>
I argue that Network Self-determination leads to several positive
externalities for the affected communities while preserving the Internet as
a decentralized, interoperable and generative network of networks.
In this perspective, concrete examples of communities enjoying Network
Self-determination seem to prove that “the design and development of the
Internet infrastructure have a growing impact on society”[3]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn3>
and can construct a digital environment that enables human rights.
*Mainstream networks are not so mainstream*
In almost every country in the world, Internet connectivity
predominantly relies on the existence of network infrastructure built and
managed by for-profit operators. Such infrastructure is primarily composed
of “mainstream networks,” which are those networks that RFC 7962[4]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn4>
characterizes
as controlled in a top-down fashion by the operators; spanning large areas;
requiring a substantial investment to be built and maintained; and not
foreseeing the possibility for users to participate in the network’s
governance.
Not surprisingly, mainstream networks are mainly deployed and
operationalized in densely populated areas, where return on investments can
be quite fast and straightforward, due to the high demand of connectivity
by thousands – or millions – of city dwellers. The situation, however, is
not the same in rural areas or in the peripheries of major metropolises,
where the scarce density and lower standards of living cannot guarantee
immediate and sufficient return on investment for operators.
In rural and peripheral areas, which are home to the 48% of the world
population that is currently unconnected,[5]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn5>
the sole reliance on mainstream networks does not prove to be an effective
strategy to expand connectivity. Indeed, the prospect of a missed return on
investment discourages development of infrastructure, leading to lack of
coverage or to such high prices and low quality of service that potential
or existing users might be discouraged from subscribing to available
Internet-access offerings. In such context, several studies have pointed
out that the lack of competition can make Internet-access offerings so
prohibitively expensive that locals need to sacrifice food to afford
communications.[6]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn6>
Most importantly, individuals living in unconnected or scarcely
connected areas may rightfully fail to see the appeal of Internet access
because any services or content that would improve their welfare – such as
local government services, information and educational material in local
languages and platforms making available local products and services – are
not available online.
*Do-It-Yourself Internet *
Despite the above scenario, many individuals living in unconnected or
scarcely connected communities have realized that Internet connectivity is
a vector for many economic, social and cultural opportunities and have
taken action to stop being digitally-marginalized, due to market failures
and inefficient public policies, and start building their own community
networks, to become the protagonists of their digital futures.
Concretely, such reasoning has become possible thanks to the steady
reduction in infrastructure costs – particularly, regarding bandwidth and
network equipment – that, over the past decade, has facilitated the
deployment of community networks with reasonably low investments.
Community networks are crowdsourced initiatives. Described by RFC 7962
as “alternative networks,” they are “networks that do not share the
characteristics of mainstream network deployments.” On the contrary,
community networks are better characterized by the fact that they are
developed in a bottom-up fashion, in order to be utilized and managed by
the local community as commons. As stressed by the Declaration on Community
Connectivity[7]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn7>
these networks are “structured to be open, free, and to respect network
neutrality. Such networks rely on the active participation of local
communities in the design, development, deployment, and management of
shared infrastructure as a common resource, owned by the community, and
operated in a democratic fashion.”
Besides representing a viable solution to the limits of mainstream
networks, community networks also ensure that Internet traffic is managed
with no commercially motivated discrimination, thus respecting net
neutrality[8]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn8>
by default. Indeed, all network users are partners in the provision of
connectivity and in the development of services for the local community,
thus making it much more difficult that the provider – which is the
community itself – discriminate content, applications or services based on
commercial considerations.
These initiatives demonstrate that connectivity, openness, free choice
and full enjoyment of fundamental rights are not amenities reserved to
opulent city-dwellers but basic needs to which everyone is entitled and
that everyone can and must enjoy. Moreover, they prove that “connectivity
increases the capacity for individuals to exercise their rights.”[9]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn9>
*When the last mile becomes the first mile *
Community networking evidences that, in many circumstances, the
unconnected can connect themselves, as longs as they have information on
how to build[10]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn10>
their network infrastructure and the freedom to choose this option.
It is precisely in such perspective that an ample range of community
networks emerged in many diverse countries, going from the UK
<https://b4rn.org.uk/> to Argentina <http://www.altermundi.net/> and
from Brazil <http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/> to Spain
<http://guifi.net/>.
Broadband for the Rural North, or B4RN, which is pronounced “barn,” was
initiated in 2011 by a group of farmers and a hairdresser in Lancashire,
U.K., who decided to overcome the lack of connectivity by starting
self-installing fibre. Today the B4RN network connects 40 parishes and
provides speeds as high as 1 gigabit per second.
The NGO AlterMundi,[11]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn11>
which is behind QuintanaLibre, a community network in the Argentinian
province of Córdoba, prides itself on having successfully developed a
“geek-free” model to overcome the main challenges posed by rural
environments, the scarcity of engineers and reduced incomes, by developing
an easy to implement and cost-efficient network technology. Importantly,
the availability of connectivity has stimulated the development of several
applications by the locals for the locals, including an information portal,
a chat service, a VoIP server, community radio streaming, a file sharing
system and gaming applications.
The AlterMundi-affiliated networks also provide Internet access to three
schools, giving students the opportunity to access online resources.
Similarly, the Brazilian NGO Coolab[12]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn12>
provides
connectivity and ICT training to dozen children through the *Casa dos
Meninos* project while connecting and entire village via the Fumaça
community network, in the Rio de Janeiro state.
The most successful example is Guifi.net that, besides being the biggest
and the most populated community network in the world with over 85,000
users, is particularly outstanding for its common-pool-resource philosophy
that favors the establishment of “a disruptive economic model based on the
commons model and the collaborative economy,”[13]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn13>
encouraging small, local entrants to develop new applications and to extend
the network themselves.[14]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn14>
Indeed, Guifi.net members have generated a variety of services[15]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn15>,
amongst which VoIP servers, IRC servers, videoconference and mail
servers and broadcast radios.
Importantly, besides expanding the Internet and promoting innovation in
a decentralized fashion, community networks like Guifi.net have created
dozens of new jobs related to network maintenance and entirely new digital
ecosystems. Indeed community networking generally features
capacity-building programs for locals to acquire the skills they need to be
developers, creators and online entrepreneurs.
In this perspective, community networks, built by the people for the
people,[16]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn16>
should not be considered as the last mile of the Internet but rather as the
first mile, for they have a vital role in maximizing the generative nature
of the Internet, decentralizing innovation and empowering the unconnected.
*Network Self-determination*
Examples of community networks show that these initiatives nurture the
development of community-tailored services, stimulating new opportunities
for learning, trading and employment for locals.
Hence, these initiatives provide a sound evidence base on which a right
to “Network Self-determination” can be constructed. I propose the concept
of Network Self-determination as the right to freely associate to define,
in a democratic fashion, the design, development and management of network
infrastructure as a common good, in order to freely seek, impart and
receive information and innovation.
While community networking proves that Network Self-determination
already exists *de facto* even without being explicitly consecrated* de
jure*, it is important to stress that this concept is also solidly
grounded in International human rights law.
The first article of both the Charter of the United Nations and the two
International Covenants of Human Rights decisively affirm that, by virtue
of the fundamental right to self-determination, all peoples are free to
pursue their economic, social and cultural development as well as
self-organization. According to both Articles 1(3) of both Covenants, all
states have an obligation “to promote the realization of the right to
self-determination,” which is considered the collective right of a given
community to determine its own destiny.
Community networks foster Network Self-determination, for they allow
individuals to decide independently how to pursue their economic, social
and cultural development, choosing which kind of technology, applications
and content are best suited to meet the needs of the local community and
using and developing them at the local level, in a quintessentially
distributed fashion. The goal of community networking is indeed to empower
individuals who will become new, active participants in the Internet, thus
enjoying the benefits of connectivity while contributing to the evolution
the network of networks as “a large, varied and evolving space of
technology.”[17]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn17>
*Rights, as technologies, are the product of history *
The enjoyment of Network Self-determination through the development of
community networks can prompt several positive externalities, thus
fostering a decentralised Internet and allowing previously unconnected or
scarcely connected individuals to access knowledge and education, create
new applications and find occupations, having access to the entire spectrum
of opportunities to which any individual should be entitled.
Enthusiasm and optimism regarding community networking should be
tempered with a good dose of pragmatism, though. Indeed, alternative
networks should be seen as a valuable complement to existing approaches
rather than a silver bullet that can solve all connectivity problems.
Community networks require sound planning and good governance to be
successful and face many technical and policy obstacles over their path. In
this perspective, the IETF community should consider that Internet
standards are vital to allow the establishment, interoperability and,
potentially, the federation of community networks.
There is no doubt that Network Self-determination reinforces the
distributed nature of the Internet and there is no reason why individuals
should not have the possibility to build the Internet themselves, improving
their standards of living while bridging digital divides.
Communities around the globe are discovering they have the potential to
create alternative networks and many of them are already doing so. As the
Italian philosopher Norberto Bobbio famously argued, human rights are the
product of historical evolutions.[18
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftn18>
] In this spirit, everyone should be free to enjoy Network
Self-determination, associating and building a new piece of the Internet.
[1] See http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016
[2] See Belli L. (2017). Network Self-Determination and the Positive
Externalities of Community Networks. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.b
r/dspace/handle/10438/19924
[3] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[4] See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7962.txt
[5] See https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTF
actsFigures2017.pdf
[6] See e.g. Rey-Moreno, C., Blignaut, R., May, J., & Tucker, W. D.
(2016). An in-depth study of the ICT ecosystem in a South African rural
community: unveiling expenditure and communication patterns. Information
Technology for Development Vol. 22 (sup 1). Pp 101–120.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145
<http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145>
[7] See Declaration on Community Connectivity
http://communityconnectivity.xyz/
[8] See http://www.networkneutrality.info/
[9] See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[10] See https://commotionwireless.net/docs/cck/
[11] See http://altermundi.net/
[12] See http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/
[13] See https://guifi.net/en/what_is_guifinet
[14] See Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., Navarro L. (2015). Guifi.net,
a Crowdsourced Network Infrastructure Held in Common. In Computer Networks.
N° 90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009
[15] A complete list of services developed by the Guifi.net community
can be found at https://guifi.net/en/node/3671/view/services
[16] See Belli L. (Ed.) (2017). Community networks: the Internet by the
people, for the people. Official Outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on
Community Connectivity. FGV Direito Rio. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.b
r/dspace/handle/10438/19401
[17] See RFC 1958 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958
[18] See Bobbio N. (1990). L'età dei diritti.
[image: FGV Direito Rio]
*Luca Belli, PhD*
*Senior Researcher *
*Head of **Internet Governance @ FGV
<http://internet-governance.fgv.br/>*
luca.belli(a)fgv.br
+55 21 3799 *5763*
*@1lucabelli <https://twitter.com/1lucabelli>*
[image: http://www.fgv.br/mailing/Direito_Rio/assinatura_email/Ondas.png]
------------------------------
------------------------------
[1]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref1>
See http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016
[2]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref2>
See Belli L. (2017). Network Self-Determination and the Positive
Externalities of Community Networks. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.b
r/dspace/handle/10438/19924
[3]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref3>
See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[4]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref4>
See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7962.txt
[5]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref5>
See https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTF
actsFigures2017.pdf
[6]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref6>
See e.g. Rey-Moreno, C., Blignaut, R., May, J., & Tucker, W. D. (2016). An
in-depth study of the ICT ecosystem in a South African rural community:
unveiling expenditure and communication patterns. Information Technology
for Development Vol. 22 (sup 1). Pp 101–120.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2016.1155145
[7]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref7>
See Declaration on Community Connectivity http://communityconnectivity.x
yz/
[8]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref8>
See http://www.networkneutrality.info/
[9]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref9>
See RFC 8280 https://trac.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280#page-40
[10]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref10>
See https://commotionwireless.net/docs/cck/
[11]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref11>
See http://altermundi.net/
[12]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref12>
See http://www.coolab.org/quem-somos/
[13]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref13>
See
https://guifi.net/en/what_is_guifinet
[14]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref14>
See
Baig, R., Roca, R., Freitag, F., Navarro L. (2015). Guifi.net, a
Crowdsourced Network Infrastructure Held in Common. In Computer Networks.
N° 90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.009
[15]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref15>
A complete list of services developed by the Guifi.net community can be
found at https://guifi.net/en/node/3671/view/services
[16]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref16>
See Belli L. (Ed.) (2017). Community networks: the Internet by the people,
for the people. Official Outcome of the UN IGF Dynamic Coalition on
Community Connectivity. FGV Direito Rio. http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.b
r/dspace/handle/10438/19401
[1
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref17>
7] See RFC 1958 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1958
[18]
<#m_3083108569058460370_m_3466084778542547380_m_856985799163038416_m_-6984504110071177124__ftnref18>
See Bobbio N. (1990). L'età dei diritti.
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
2457
days inactive
2478
days old
5 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Glenn McKnight -
Luca Belli