Reviewer:

1) Is the subject matter relevant?

The subject matter is definitely relevant. Taking the case of wireless community networks, it has things to say for several crucial questions of our times, such as the dialectic between freedom and surveillance, user control on their computing resources and equipment, and the extent to which law-like actions can be carried out through technology. The main problem with the paper (I will come back to it later on) is that in its present state (style, organization, and mostly length), it is quite certainly not a journal article, but a report. Thus, I believe it needs further work before it can be published as an article.

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations of bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

The subject matter in itself is intellectually very interesting, but as previously mentioned, its treatment could be more intellectually interesting considering what type of text it needs to be : a journal article. At present, there is basically no « problematization » of the subject matter, in the form of a real research question : the paper aims to « shed light » on the phenomenon of decentralization in telecommunications networks, and at the same time, its title suggests that the article is about the conceptualizing the Internet as commons, while the relative importance given to Stefania Milan’s work among the cited references suggests that the author/s are interested in the « social movement » potential of wireless community networks and a comparatively large portion of the paper is dedicated to battles over telecom policies. I have no problem with this conceptualization « coming out of » the fieldwork, in fact, that’s what I find the most interesting : however, in the present state, it seems to me that choices need to be made regarding what the article wishes to focus on.

It seems to me that all the essential references (Benkler, Lessig, Ostrom) are there

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s mean of validating assumptions or making judgments?

The article starts from the premise that decentralization of networks architectures is positive in a number of ways, something I very much sympathize with but it would be good to include some references specific to this aspect in addition to those about the commons and about community communication.

However, the paper progresses in a logical fashion and reads smoothly.

4) Is the article well written?

Yes, generally, the article is well written.

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend to be shortened, excised or expanded?

The article tries to cover a lot of ground — too much for an actual journal article, as its almost 20,000 words are further proof of. I don’t see how this can be published before cutting it almost by half, and thus, before going through a careful process of information selection, problematization and framing.

Moreover, while it is interesting to have data for as many cases as the paper introduces, perhaps it would have been better to focus on a few of them more specifically, and delve into them a little bit more. In the paper as-is, I feel that what seems to be the main point/argument made – the need for a public policy that would consider networks as commons – gets somewhat lost in what comes before page 22.

Another report-like feature is the heavy use of footnotes, most of which should be either incorporated (a few of them) or expunged.

Reviewer:

1) Is the subject matter relevant?

Considering recent cases of government and corporate interference with the free flow of information on the Internet, the potential of wireless community networks explored by the author(s) is highly relevant. Moreover, the author(s) shed(s) light to an issue that has not been sufficiently explored by existing literature.

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations of bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

Yes. However, Part 1.2. would benefit from a more extensive reference to the body of literature assessing the EU regulatory framework in the telecom sector for more details, see attached article with corrections/suggestions).

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s mean of validating assumptions or making judgements?

I have identified two points in p. 6 where the author(s) make(s) two assumptions without providing sufficient evidence (for more details, see attached article with corrections/suggestions). However, they would not change the main message the author(s) seek(s) to convey, hence they do not create any noticeable problems.

4) Is the article well written?

Yes, the article is well-written and has a clear structure.

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend to be shortened, excised or expanded?

The author(s) would need to expand Part 1.2. where they assess the EU legal framework. Reference to more cases and, as noted above, secondary literature is needed whereas some points need to be further developed (e.g. the ineffectiveness of EU competition law and the “subtle forms” of regulatory capture referred to in pp. 5 and 6). For more details, see attached article with corrections/suggestions.