Hi,
I'm Vesna, from Technologia Incognita hackerspace in Amsterdam
"mwfc" asked me if I would be interested to join your effort.
Yes, I like it a lot, and I will be happy to contribute.
Perosnally, I am very much interested in decentralized networking.
However, that would be on the totally personal title,
since I work for RIPE NCC, but I will *not* be representing RIPE NCC.
Since I have many years of experience with the RIPE community, I can give
advice on who to approach and how to cooperate with the RIPE community.
As for the practical work contribution: I will be participating in 30c3,
so I suggest that we make one or two meetings / working group sessions /
hackathons at 30c3, to get together and get more work done. That's not
online yet, so when it is I can do that part.
Other then that, I will talk with my contacts in the peering community to
see if they can contribute with knowledge and experience.
Looking forward to working together,
Vesna
BecHa
--
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is
our inability to understand the exponential function."
http://becha.home.xs4all.nl
ciao,
vesna
--
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is
our inability to understand the exponential function."
http://becha.home.xs4all.nl
Hi there,
As part of the tools aimed to help us to build the int. org. a wiki [1]
and a pad [2] are up and running (with even the backup systems tested :p).
[1] http://dokuwiki.tmp-l2org.guifi.net
[2] http://etherpad.tmp-l2org.guifi.net
* CALL FOR PARTICIPATION *
* Logistics*
At the moment they are hosted in a guifi.net server, but can be migrated
to anywhere else if we decide to do so. So far I'm the only (sys)admin
but I'm happy to share these tasks with anyone else.
* Contents *
I have started putting some content/informtion already gathered
(meetings, research, etc.) and will continue doing so next week. I would
appreciate if you could have a look, specially at the wiki, and provide
feedback about the general layout. You are all also encouraged to
register a user and start adding content.
* WORKPLAN *
>From the meetings we have already had working by topics seems to be the
most convinient way. This is how I started structuring the wiki (well,
the wiki concept itself is already based on topics). I added a "Roadmap"
[1] section in the start page with the idea to hihglight (and drive a
bit) the hot topics.
[1] http://dokuwiki.tmp-l2org.guifi.net/doku.php?id=start&#roadmap
* NEXT STEPS *
I think we should have the basics (org name, domain, mission, etc.) not
later than by the end of November. I propose to debate them during a
couple of weeks and then to have a meeting to finish the discussons and
to try to reach consensus. I volunteer to moderate the discussions. Pls,
also feedback about this.
Best regards.
--
Roger Baig Viñas
Fundació Privada per a la Xarxa Oberta, Lliure i Neutral guifi.net
At the meeting in Berlin, I offered to do a more in-depth analysis of how the
current draft of the Free Network Definition compares to the long-standing Pico
Peering Agreement.
I've been travelling and settling back in at home, so I apologize for the delay.
Here goes.
Relevant documents live here:
https://commons.thefnf.org/index.php/Free_network_definition
and here:
http://www.picopeer.net/PPA-en.html
Before getting into nitty gritties, I want to give my impressions at a higher
altitude. I think the design goals of the documents are fairly disparate. The
PPA, I think was intended to act as a governance document. Almost a middle
ground between the FND and the NCL. In large part, I think that trying to do two
things at once means that neither one gets done particularly well. Many of the
provisos in the PPA *do* have a place in the NCL, imo. For that reason, it's a
little bit odd comparing it just to the Free Network Definition. Still,
interesting.
Perhaps the preamble of the PPA says it best: "This document is an attempt to
connect those network islands by providing the minimum baseline template for a
peering agreement between owners of individual network nodes - the Pico Peering
Agreement."
That is not the objective of the FND. The (modified) preamble to the FND states:
"Our intention is to build communications systems that function as a commons. We
call such systems 'free networks' and they are characterized by the following
three freedoms." (Note that we're not trying to enable actual interconnection
with this document, only an understanding of what free networks *are*).
Okay. so.
I think the following items from the PPA:
-The owner agrees to provide free transit accross their free network.
-The owner agrees to publish the information necessary for peering to take
place.
-The service can be scaled back or withdrawn at any time with no notice
relate to the following from the FND:
The Freedom to participate in the network, and to allow others to do the same.
Major salient difference here is that the PPA offers absolutely no guarantee of
any kind that folks will be able to join/expand the network. Only that if they
do so, they will be granted free transit. This is the major difference between
the documents. FND views Free Networks as networks that anybody can expand.
(Perhaps we need to say, even in the FND, that folks are free to expand and be
expanded, so long as it doesn't hurt the network? Or is the presumption that you
can't do stuff that's bad for the network? Seems problematic, as in a certain
sense, any expansion places addition strain on exists componenets. Probably best
to leave as is, and clarify in the NCL).
Next, the follow PPA clauses:
-The owner agrees not to modify or interfere with data as it passes through their
free network.
-There is no guaranteed level of service
-The service is provided "as is", with no warranty or liability of whatsoever
kind
relates to:
The freedom to communicate using the network for any purpose, without
interception or interference.
PPA I think gets too deep into network performance territory. I see no reason
why one could not have SLA-like agreements within networks, spelling out
responsibilities. The PPA also makes no mention of interception. Baseline PPA
agreement would allow anyone on the network to snoop traffic. There is something
to be said for not making guarantees, but in a framework of rights and
responsibilities and freedoms, making sure that people know its not okay to
intercept seems important. Adequate caveats can be made for necessary
maintenance and such, but the baseline should be 'no snooping'.
and finally,
-The owner agrees to publish the information necessary for peering to take place
-This information shall be published under a free licence
relate to:
The freedom to modify and improve the network, including the ability to access,
author and distribute information about how the network functions.
Pretty good accord here, though FND takes a much more active stance. Again, it
easy to see how the three freedoms in the FND, if taken to an extreme, would
lead to bad outcomes. Such is the case, I think, with all freedoms. Does it need
to be said somewhere, maybe in the preamble, that these freedoms extend right up
to the point where the interfere with other peoples' same freedoms?
And then the PPA has a bunch of stuff that doesn't match up with FND content.
This is due to the afformentioned mismatch in scope:
-The owner is entitled to formulate an 'acceptable use policy'
-This may or may not contain information about additional services provided
(apart from basic access)
-The owner is free to formulate this policy as long as it does not contradict
points 1 to 3 of this agreement (see point 5)
These are gritty details that have no place in a definition of free networks,
but probably relate strongly to the NCL. In a sense, I think that the NCL would
outmode some of these considerations by creating a more unified framework.
I am obviously biased, but I really do think the Definition/License approach
makes more sense. Main take-away is the question of whether the extent of
freedoms should be circumscribed in the document/preamble.
I hope this helps. For me, it strengthened the feeling that we're on to
something good.
I wonder what our next steps should be. Are there folks to whom we should
circulate the definition for comments?
Folks within the free network movement?
Folks within the free software movement?
Folks within the free culture movement?
all of the above?
peace, love, and networking,
imw
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
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
Hey all,
Better late than never, this is the temp commons net list to follow up from
the conversation at sudo room on September 4th. It was really wonderful to
meet you all - I for one learned a lot! Below is a fairly coherent
summation..
----------
*Attendees*: Mikaela, Isaac, Jenny, Roger, Pau, Mitar, Marc, Chris,
Shaddih, Nader, Miguel, Rosalie
*What we've been working on:*
- Presentation on Saturday was rad! We now have video documentation.
- Marc has been working on autogeneration of firmware / kit to be
finished up in ~ a month; Fake captive portal by capturing inspection
traffic
- Pau from Guifi.net - working on the qmp firmware - clouds of about 50
nodes working on this system. Beginning to collaborate with Argentina and
Italy on a new firmware project: LibreMesh - Using batman-adv, bu
http://www.guidingtech.com/10346/transfer-android-apps-between-phones-bluet…<http://www.guidingtech.com/10346/transfer-android-apps-between-phones-bluet…>
t<http://www.guidingtech.com/10346/transfer-android-apps-between-phones-bluet…>Layer
2 has problems with scalability, 30-40 nodes hit peak congestion
through conflicting ARP requests. So they're using BMX6 (Layer 3) protocol
to make connections between Layer 2. They discover Layer 2 clouds and join
them. Layer 2 (batman-adv) still helpful to create continuity between nodes.
- Shaddih working on an OpenBTS network in Papua, isolated community -
100,000 txt messages sent since February. Using hardware from range
networks. Base station cost ~$4-5k. Cost is the biggest problem.
- Isaac from Free Network Foundation/Kansas City - their community
network is used daily by a few thousand people. Adapted qmp firmware to the
Kansas City network. Has been playing with GNU MediaGoblin. Thinking about
how to do diverse authentication. WOrking on a Network Commons license.
- Mikaela interested in sharing tokens for access to the mesh
- Nader working on building a network among the UC Berkeley co-ops
- Miguel working on firmware
- Mitar built slovenia network on top of an abundance of fiber;
Nodewatcher
*Funding:*
-
http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/grants-awards/community-grants
- OpenTechFund
- Need to procure outdoor UV-resistant cable, colocation for the VPN
exit node
*Legal Issues / Network Commons License*
- Ownership of the actual nodes to be retained by the people themselves
- Enforceable agreement that gives the community the right to disconnect
a problematic node
- Industries want security on their investments (Guifi input)
- Part 97 of FCC Rules - License by rule, any purpose that's industrial
scientific or medical - 2.4 & 5.8 GHz
- Creative Commons, pros and cons:
- Pros: Umbrella definition of a spectrum of licrnses that share some
basic principles; easier to change
- Cons: Assumption that basic Creative Commons license is enough, when
it really implies a wide spectrum; keeping it simple allows room for growth
*How to interconnect a free network with a proprietary network?*
- Guifi.net: Internet access as a service - all services must be allowed
(net neutrality) - businesses make the network sustainable, so we need to
accomodate them, too.
- Organization that maintains and educates around use of this license
- Distinguishing between the Foundation and the Network(s)
- Internal Versioning Number for the NCL (Network Commons License) is at
version 0.2
- Goal is to share definitions
*Breakout Groups*
- Present on federation
- Do you know about this: https://github.com/freifunk/api.freifunk.net
- Licensing: Marc, Isaac
- Operational: Shaddih,
- Firmware
- Communications / Remote Participation for IS4CWN
- Local DNS / Services:
*Guifi.net Operational Structure*
- Open project - no membership fee or policies - you're a member if you
decide you are
- Ownership of the network is distributed
- License is also important
- Tries to automate as much as possible, to avoid manual intervention
- Use the tools available to solve problems, avoiding manual operation
- Nodes have a physical location, and can become supernodes
- Ad-hoc mode not really used. To propagate the network, you must have
at least two radios to receive and propagate - this model is sim[ply more
supported
- No central point of authority - theoretically. Source code public and
open, anyone can also set up a network infrastructure
- Technology-agnostic - strives to be as inclusive as possible
- Tools to check on the statistics of the network
- Use BGP (+ OSPF)
- Have routing problems - every day, hour, minute! BGP not meant for wifi
- Funded by itself - those who want to join must pay the cost of joining
it, in charge of upgrading hardware, etc
- Up to the people themselves to keep up with maintenance
- Normally if a supernode goes down, it will be fixed within the next 48
hours
- They have a fundraising option to request money from the network
- Mostly run as a web of trust - mostly one degree of separation from
each other
- Monopolistic mentality is internalized in Western culture -
- When they first connected to the Internet, started receiving DDOS
attacks
- Guifinet Foundation is the umbrella of many small ISPs in the network,
using GuifiNet Foundation to connect to the Internet
- GuifiNet Foundation as an incubator for small businesses seeking to
become their own ISPs
- Interested in cultivating a fair competition within the network
- Separating organization (run by benevolent dictator) from network
(owned by community - can mutiny)
- How to deal with legal issues : Refer to EU directives; Telecom
directives; referring to govs to get permission to deploy fiber - more
complicated because not a traditional ISP; need to keep IP logs - data
retention policy - what's the information content of that Ip address,
what's discoverable from there?
- Who's the ISP, and how is that defined? Usually by size, or commercial
interest
*Ideas thenceforth:*
- Give away nodes or sell them for $5 in exchange for attending workshop
- The bigger you are, the more weird things you're going to face
- CALEA: Comms Assistant for Law Enforcement Act -- local requirements
for logging and reporting via industry best practices
- Could say we don't log NAT because the technical requirements are too
high
*wlan-slovenia vs guifi.net*
- People own the equipment
- Slovenia has a lot of fiber
- Overabundance of connectivity led to desire to share the bandwidth
- What if someone takes my link? steals my data? makes a stupid thing on
the internet and i'm blamed?
- Solution: vpn tunnels
- When a person donates a node, he hosts bandwidth - not IP
- Had to develop their own VPN, as the throughput was too slow
- 300 vs 21,000 nodes - but slovenia is very small :)
- International link to austria and to croatia
- Longest hop is 40km
*How to get wider participation?*
- Reach out to networks we don't even know about yet
- Roger Proposal: Commons For Europe
- Code For Europe / Bottom-Up Broadband
- Org of Orgs - at the Euro level? nah - talked to some other
communities (eg Ninux, Freifunk [difficult as they are separated by city],
Funkfeur - toward creating an organization to federate amongst.
- What sort of organization do we want?
- What kind of participants?
- International agreements for participation
We concluded the meeting with a desire to set up a communications framework
toward a federation of libre networks, and set up this mailing list in the
interim.
Cheers,
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
~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`
Hello all,
Very excited thay we have a list spun up for discussion of the NCL. As I wasn't in Oakland and haven't seen any notes of the discussions re NCL, would someone mind summarizing the conversation here?
Isasc gave me a couple bullet points, mainly around the cteative commons aspect with clauses that can be swapped in/out.
Would love to know more, especially any questions/concerns around the NCL as it currently stands. The draft on the FNF wiki is fairly complete, though the definitions need some work. I would very much like to have a fairly complete draft by the berlin wireless summit, so we can present and circulate widely for feedback.
I believe that the NCL captures the spirit of what we as collective hackers/makers/technologists/activists etc want a network (and federation of networks) to be. The wider we can circulate and get feedback the better.
--
Charles Wyble
(818) 280-7059 charles(a)knownelement.com
CTO Free Network Foundation (thefnf.org)
