We're having our weekly hacknight tonight at sudo room at 7:30 pm.
Maybe we can spend minimal time talking and just sit down and get some work
done? Here's a suggested agenda:
1. Introductions
2. Order stickers
3. Updates
4. Hack on stuff!
Things to work on:
*sudomesh.org web content and design
*peoplesopen.net web content and design
*Firmware (many aspects)
*sudomesh logo design
*Splash page content and design
*Fake captive portal
*Internet is down page design
*Secure VPN setup for exit nodes
*Fundraising (y-combinator grant?)
*Organizing workshops?
*Electronics and software for DisasterRadio!
Bring some snacks and caffeine!
--
Marc
Also a highly relevant conversation. I'll give a more in-depth reportback
once I have finally escaped the wondrous black hole that is c-base.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jenny Ryan <jenny(a)thepyre.org>
Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:53 PM
Subject: Notes on Governing the Wireless Commons
To: Greg Bloom <greg.bloom(a)gmail.com>
1. Clearly defined *boundaries*, which delineate who has access to the
Common pool resource.
- *"I clearly understand for which resources I need to care and with
whom I share this responsibility*."
- "This network is open to everyone" is also a clear boundary.
- Many forms of contribution make it difficult to define boundaries.
- Hyperlocal services provisioned to a specified area.
- Take the risks and define boundaries when necessary.
- Once connected to the Internet (which is propietary), terms and
conditions may apply.
2. Appropriation and provision *rules* which are tailored to local
conditions.
- *"We use the means (time, space, technology, and the quantity of a
resource) that are available in a given context. As commoner I am satisfied
that there is a fair relationship between my contributions and the benefits
I receive."*
- Rule of Who's not In is Out.
- Cellular network in Oaxaca, once they had it, it was available to
other communities, and the network community decided that they did not want
the other communities to be able to access their network.
- "Rules" makes it seems like it's set in stone.
3. Collective-choice arrangements, that allow most resource appropriators
to participate in the *decision-making* process.
- *"We enter into or modify our own rules and commitments, and every
commoner can participate in this process. Our commitments serve to create,
maintain, and preserve the commons to satisfy our needs."*
- BTOP project in Philadelphia to build out computer centers sought out
community group buy-in, in order to more effectively implement the project.
- Do-ocracy: Ask for forgiveness not for permission
4. Effective *monitoring* - monitors accountable to appropriators, or are
appropriators.
- *"We monitor the respect of these commitments ourselves and sometimes
we mandate others whom we trust to help reach this goal. We continually
reassess whether our commitments still serve their purpose."*
- In a way, Community Wireless Networks are a resource that is very easy
to monitor (traffic analysis) compared to some other commons.
- Process of monitoring and management is usually limited a smaller
group of people who has technical expertise. Maybe we need better tools for
"lay-users" to be able to monitor and manage common resources.
- "You have too many goats in our field... maybe you can eat some of
them?"
- Problem of "commoners" vs. "consumer-commoners"
- Think of a church which gives food only to those who worship with
them, vs one that provides to everyone and invites them to worship.
- Disconnect / lack of empathy between consumers and producers is core
to the problem
5. Graduated *sanctions* for resource appropriators who violate
operational community rules.
- *"We work out appropriate rules for dealing with violations of our
commitments. We determine whether and what kinds of sanctions shall be
used, depending on the context and severity of a violation."*
- Technological sanctions like ACLs (Access control list can ban certain
devices), filtering, QOS.
- What are some user-friendly (positive) graduated sanctions we could
adopt?
- Freifunk: Script running a system of points for individual nodes that
are throttled when a certain limit is reached
6. *Conflict resolution* mechanisms that are cheap and rapidly accessed.
- *"Every commoner can make use of a space and means for conflict
resolution. We seek to resolve conflicts among us in an easily accessible
and straightforward way."*
- Guifi has a formalized conflict resolution process. Gufi has a
operator license that is an umbrella for the members of the foundation.
- If an organization fails to fulfill the license agreement, the
following steps are taken:
- 1. Contact directly the organizers
- 2. Have an open discussion between the parties
- 3. Have a sit down meeting.
- 4. Generally turns out that one party has not fulflilled the license
and that is the source of the conflict.
- 5. Final step is taking the conflict to court
- Creator/consumer user hierarchy among the commoners - on one end is
simply agreement to the TOS, the other creating the rules.
7. *Self-determination* of the community recognized by higher-level
authorities.
- *"We regulate our own affairs, and external authorities respect that."*
- There are new regulations (in Germany?) that make it so that network
operators are also held accountable for violations, which makes people
nervous.
- DC had a municipal fiber networks that other organizations could
connect to - community anchor institutions attempted to organize mesh
networks, which spooked the government into rejecting it (due to their
lack of formal institutional structure).
- Must adjust self-governing principles to cooperate with the
authorities. We mostly work in wireless because that's where we *can* be
self-determining (open spectrum).
- CONFINE project funded by the EU supports the formation of local
community wireless networks
8. *Nested enterprises. *Larger CPRs are organised in the form of
multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base
level.
- *"We realize that every commons is part of a larger whole. Therefore,
different institutions working at different scales are needed to coordinate
stewardship and to cooperate with each other."*
- Network (FNF) in Kansas city has a design pattern that reflects
different levels of functionality and access. Guifi.net has zones. Many
different projects have a concept of different levels of access. Freifunk
and c-base have a layered structure, where each part of the structure
manages its own resources but they have a common idea or interest.
- Burning Man is a large organization that could be characterized as
having a similar structure.
- A common identity helps everyone to feel associated, like Freifunk or
CCC. Guifi could be a similar model - The Guifi Foundation hosts
principles for new network organizations to form around.
Notes from tonight's meeting re: Network Commons Licensing :)
Please give feedback in the next 24 hours if you have any questions for
folks! We have also created a temporary list here, which was spawned during
our meeting with Pau, Roger and Isaac some weeks ago:
lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/tmpcommonsnet
Follow #is4cwn, the talks are streaming live and there's some excellent
tweeting going on!
Cheers from Berlin!
Jenny
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jenny Ryan <tunabananas(a)gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 10:04 PM
Subject: Notes from Network Commons License mtg @ IS4CWN2013
To: tmpcommonsnet <tmpcommonsnet(a)lists.sudoroom.org>
Greetings comrades!
A pleasure to participate in a most excellent roundtable discussion moving
toward a network commons license this evening at c-base!
Here are the notes off the etherpad, for documentation and sharing with our
friends across the pond. I will also shortly start a thread for a round of
introductions :-)
-------
This pad is meant to just as an index. Discussions must be kept in
individual pads
(tmp) mailing list
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/tmpcommonsnet
name
http://etherpad.guifi.net/L2-org-name
vision and mission
http://etherpad.guifi.net/L2-mission
initial pad THAT MUST BE REWORKED
http://etherpad.guifi.net/C4EU-orgs
=======================================================
rought notes of meeting at IS4CWN 2013
*) we continue the discussion via the tmp mailing list
pls send any update, no matter from where
*) international organisations
ISOC
RIRs (e.g. RIPE-NCC, )
*) international actions
lobbyingg
policy making
*) license
*) network map
to have a big picture
*) define what a CN is
=> which/who can be accepted at the L2org
FNF proposal: https://commons.thefnf.org/index.php/Free_network_definition
0. Freedom to participate and to make others participate
L2 access vs L3 access => access the network vs peering with the
network => joining th commons vs extending the commons
1. Freedom to communicate using the network for any purpose without
interception or interference - and free of charge
2, The freedom to modify and improve the network, including the ability to
access, author and distribute information about how the network functions.
? non-(private?)-profit with the network itself
not really sure if this must be at this level (could/should be placed
in the licence)
Fair profit [guifi] - can be legally enforced
Transit inside the network should be free
Guifinet: Difference between Network and content. Access to the
Internet is content
internally must be free. to get outside might be charged
Precaution that we maintain actual freedom - problem with Creative
COmmons is that much that is licensed under CC is not actually free
(non-commercial)
Additional concerns (very likely not to go to the def/license but as
recommendations)
The freedom to know the ecologial impact of the hardware?
The right to ask for the information about the hardware?
fairness as a restriction?
running free software?
distribured property (multistakeholder)
is not a request, but it is recommended
Cannot charge a fee to interconnect the commons.
Access to knowledge as a fundamental principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_to_knowledge_movement
Three themes here:
Free Network
Community Network - owned by the community
Profit / Non-profit
overlay net. vs physical net
we are talking about phy
what about mixed overlay+phy networks (e.g. fon)?
difference between the picopeer agr and our efforts
*)*) licence
FNF proposal
http://commons.thefnf.org/index.php/Network_Commons_License
creative-commons-like incremental license proposed by Mitar at Oakland (?)
suggestion: confront with statistics of CC in terms for flavours used
examples of additional clauses:
- free software only
- ecological footprint
- not for profit
- owned by the users?
Membership
???
=Action Items=
* Isaac: Take 'owned by its users' out of the preamble
* Annemarie will pass around suggestions for legal frameworks
* Isaac: compare the picopeer agr and our def
* roger: rewrites these notes and sends them to the ml
* christian: contacts a RIPE college
* jenny: send notes to the list
-------
Jenny
http://jennyryan.nethttp://thepyre.orghttp://thevirtualcampfire.orghttp://technomadic.tumblr.com
`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
"Technology is the campfire around which we tell our stories."
-Laurie Anderson
"Storytelling reveals meaning without committing the error of defining it."
-Hannah Arendt
"To define is to kill. To suggest is to create."
-Stéphane Mallarmé
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
Hi! I found this on eBay and thought you might like it! Check it out now!
Ubiquiti Power Station 5 Ext No Reserve!!! (PS5EXT) (PSE1)
http://r.ebay.com/o71Ptw
-steve
