Autonomous Internet Road Map

Introduction

Our preliminary focus is on the Open Source Tri-Fecta, the combination of Free/Open Source Software (F/OSS), Open Spectrum, and Open Source Intelligence (OSINT), with an urgent collective commitment to focusing on the vital need to connect the three billion poorest of the poor as quickly as possible. Connectivity and Interoperability of machines and content, are the Prime Directives.

Google Group: Building a Distributed Decentralized Internet

Socio-political

Spectrum Commons

• Open Spectrum

Open and Free Internet Advocacy

• Freenet movement

Resources

Technical Terms of Reference

• Delay-Tolerant Networking
• Multihoming

Technical Infrastructure

The OSI Model

"The Open Systems Interconnection model (OSI model) is a product of the Open Systems Interconnection effort at the International Organization for Standardization. It is a way of sub-dividing a communications system into smaller parts called layers. A layer is a collection of similar functions that provide services to the layer above it and receives services from the layer below it. On each layer, an instance provides services to the instances at the layer above and requests service from the layer below."

OSI Model
	Data unit	Layer	Function
Host layers	Data	7. Application	Network process to application
		6. Presentation	Data representation, encryption and decryption, convert machine dependent data to machine independent data
		5. Session	Interhost communication
	Segments	4. Transport	End-to-end connections and reliability, flow control
Media layers	Packet	3. Network	Path determination and logical addressing
	Frame	2. Data Link	Physical addressing
	Bit	1. Physical	Media, signal and binary transmission

"Some orthogonal aspects, such as management and security, involve every layer."

Autonomous Internet Models

(this section will detail multiple models for Autonomous Internet architectures)

Physical Layer

A minimum of 3 satellites are required for global communications. More is better to prevent bottlenecks. Physical connections, wires, cables, are another layer in the system.

Router Layer

Nodes on the networks have multiple addresses.

Host Layer

Nodes on the networks have multiple addresses. Nodes on the networks implement multiple communication protocols.

Application Layer

Nodes on the networks implement multiple communication protocols. Software on the network will implement APIs for interoperability. Good APIs will provide mechanisms for automated discovery and communication.

Open Everything Overview

Below is a depiction of a simplified view of Open Everything at the strategic level. Our early focus is on the Open Source Tri-Fecta, the needed combination of Open Source Software, Open Spectrum, and Open Source Intelligence.

Discourse

Collaboration around defining Core Principles

• From Paul Hartzog:
  • interoperability first
  • inclusive (give all ideas a chance)
  • diversity (many solutions trump any single solution)
  • cooperation-oriented (populations of cooperators outperform defectors in complex systems)
  • test-driven development
  • forking & merging (evolutionary principles produce evolved/ evolveable code)
  • access for all (affordability, geolocation, peak times, bottlenecks, etc.; a political AND technical problem)
• From Richard C. Adler
  • a metadata-ready environment, perhaps embracing something akin to RDF/XML style metadata schema (or other schema that will prove appropriate on the data level(s) of the next net)
• From Aaron Huslage:
  • a Content-neutral and content-centric environment.
  • user-centered design

Open Questions

• On quora.com:
  • What are the fundamental requirements and building blocks of a distributed internet? in preparation for the Contact summit in NYC october 20 (2011), we want to understand the current landscape of projects/initiatives building a distributed internet and the fundamental requirements so we can better coordinate efforts

• Aaron Huslage on The Next Net Google Group, thread "Too Geeky?":
  • There are some major issues with the technology stuff we talk about. It's largely too geeky. This is normal for new technology since the developers and early adopters are practitioners of geekery, but I worry about things when they get to grandma and grandpa. "Normal" people don't know how to use BitTorrent or port forward their router, for instance, so how can they participate in one of the many p2p networks in existence today? "Normal" people don't even know they HAVE a router, they take what the telco gives them and call them when it breaks. "Normal" people don't even know what a web browser is, they simply click the little Internet icon on their desktop and are whisked away to a world where everything is peaceful and amazing. See what I mean? What implications does a distributed Internet have for users? How do we make this stuff EASY and as fully baked as possible?

• Richard C. Adler on Users: Who will be using it? And what for?:
  • There's a topic we've touched on in a couple of these threads but haven't addressed directly: who do we expect to be using this distributed internet? Some points to make up front about starting from the user side: 1) I realize this question is, by definition, speculative. But I offer it *in context* with the other discussions (and as a more focused sub-discussion of 'defining the problem', which has strayed from Colin's original question). Considered on its own, this question might have us building an internet for a constituency that doesn't exist. But alongside the other discussions, it may help us clarify what options make sense and which do not. 2) I realize there will not be a single constituency with a single purpose in mind. Obviously many groups may/will take up whatever internet we might build, and they may have different purposes for it. What they choose to do with it may not be our immediate concern as such ('content neutral', etc), but speculation as to what they most *likely* will want to do with it may also help us clarify what this next net will need. 3) This question must necessarily influence the technical discussions already happening. If we expect many users to have limited resources (including limits on money and access to tech) and limited knowledge of technology, then solutions relying on 'the best off the shelf tech available today' will be less useful than solutions relying on 'the most affordable, most easily understood, AND most widely distributed off-the-shelf tech available today.' 4) This is *not* an issue that can just be solved on the application layer as an after-thought. It's not *just* an issue of usability or of being user friendly (though it's partly that). It's a question of what resources we are going to demand that someone must have in order to access this distributed internet, in terms of hardware, software, and technical proficiency (because whatever internet we build, we *will* be demanding that of all users, even if we wish that didn't have to be the case). Having said all that, here is one possible way to frame the question: "In its initial stages, should the next internet be architected with the expectation that it will be adopted primarily (perhaps even exclusively) by technically adept enthusiasts? Or, instead, on the expectation that it will be adopted by enthusiasts (who will always come) but ALSO a wider, less technically adept base (including activists with limited resources in hostile sociopolitical environments)?" Obviously, they way I've framed the question favors the latter option. But the former IS an option. A next net for enthusiasts would probably be much easier to make a concrete reality, and--if architected right--could be made a step toward an internet that could be used by a far greater number of people (as indeed was the case with the first internet). But I think at some point we will need to make it clear to ourselves which way we're leaning if we hope to build something truly accessible to the people we hope to make it available to.

"Greenfield" Visioning

• Greenfield Vision of Autonomous Internet