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 -The service can be scaled back or withdrawn at any time with no notice relate to the following from the FND: The Freedom to participate in the network, and to allow others to do the same.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