Operational Practices for Digital Autonomy and Meaningful Connectivity through Circular Management of User and Network Devices
draft-irtf-gaia-circular-device-practices-00
This document is an Internet-Draft (I-D) that has been submitted to the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) stream.
This I-D is not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing in the
IETF standards process.
| Document | Type | Active Internet-Draft (gaia RG) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Leandro Navarro , Mireia Roura , Eduardo Rodriguez , Viviana Ambrosi | ||
| Last updated | 2026-06-22 | ||
| Replaces | draft-gaia-circular-device-practices | ||
| RFC stream | Internet Research Task Force (IRTF) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Additional resources | Mailing list discussion | ||
| Stream | IRTF state | (None) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| Document shepherd | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-irtf-gaia-circular-device-practices-00
GAIA L. Navarro
Internet-Draft ISOC.CAT
Intended status: Informational M. Roura
Expires: 23 December 2026 eReuse.org
E. Rodriguez
TAU/RAEE
V. Ambrosi
EKOA, Facultad de Informática - UNLP
21 June 2026
Operational Practices for Digital Autonomy and Meaningful Connectivity
through Circular Management of User and Network Devices
draft-irtf-gaia-circular-device-practices-00
Abstract
This document systematizes operational practices observed across
multiple community-centred deployments that aim to improve meaningful
connectivity and community digital autonomy through the circular
management of end-user and network devices. It is published as an
Informational RFC on the IRTF stream and does not define Internet
standards or protocol requirements.
The document addresses a foundational but often overlooked dependency
of Internet connectivity deployments: the availability,
repairability, governance, sharing, reuse, and lifecycle management
of network and end-user devices required for meaningful participation
in the Internet. Based on operational experience from deployments in
Spain, Argentina, and Senegal, this document describes practices that
have demonstrated positive outcomes for connectivity, social
inclusion and community capacity, and environmental sustainability.
These practices are presented as descriptive guidance derived from
operational experience rather than as normative requirements. They
complement research within the IRTF GAIA Research Group by
documenting reproducible approaches that improve the sustainability,
autonomy, and long-term viability of community connectivity
infrastructure and meaningful participation in underserved contexts.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on 23 December 2026.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2026 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
and restrictions with respect to this document.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Background and Relationship to Prior IRTF Work . . . . . 5
1.2. Meaningful Connectivity: Context and Frameworks . . . . . 5
1.3. Relevance to IRTF GAIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2. Terminology and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3. Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4. Principles Derived from Operational Experience . . . . . . . 10
4.1. Device Availability as a Foundational Layer of
Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.2. Local Capacity, Repairability, and Digital Autonomy . . . 10
4.3. Collective Access Models and Commons-oriented
Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.4. Transparency, Traceability, and Trust across the
Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.5. Repairability and Lifecycle Extension as Environmental and
Social Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.6. Privacy and Security Embedded in Reuse Workflows . . . . 12
4.7. Environmental Responsibility across the Full Device
Lifecycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.8. Community-rooted Governance and Social Relevance . . . . 13
5. Operational Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Digitalised Circular Device Management . . . . . . . . . 13
5.2. Repair, Training, and Capacity Building . . . . . . . . . 14
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
5.3. Alignment with Connectivity Infrastructure . . . . . . . 15
5.4. Community-centred Meaningful Connectivity . . . . . . . . 15
5.5. Collective Access and Commons-based Device Governance . . 16
5.6. Federated Registries and Cross-community Coordination . . 17
5.7. Secure Data Sanitisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5.8. Architectural Considerations for Connectivity
Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6. Human Rights, Security, Privacy, and Sustainability
Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.1. Human Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
6.2. Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
6.3. Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
6.4. Environmental and Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7. Deployment Case Studies (Informative) . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.1. Catalonia and Madrid (Spain): eReuse.org ecosystem and
social enterprises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
7.2. La Plata (Argentina): EKOA/UNLP programmes integrating
refurbishment, training, and outreach . . . . . . . . . . 23
7.3. Rosario (Argentina): TAU/RAEE and territorial programmes in
villas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
7.4. Hahatay (Senegal): Device availability and inclusion in
rural and peri-urban contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Replication Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
9. Implications for Research and Deployment . . . . . . . . . . 27
10. IANA considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12.1. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
12.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1. Introduction
Extending Internet connectivity requires more than deploying network
infrastructure. Meaningful participation in the Internet also
depends on the availability of functional, affordable, and
maintainable devices, including end-user devices (e.g., laptops and
phones) and, in many deployments, networking equipment such as
routers, switches, and antennas. In underserved communities, limited
device availability is often a primary barrier to participating in
the Internet, even where connectivity infrastructure already exists
or is planned.
While electronic devices cannot be fully circular in a strict
material sense, circular device management (defined in Section 2)
extends device lifetimes and maximises reuse before final recycling
or disposal.
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
Circular device management has emerged as an effective approach to
address this barrier. Device availability and lifecycle management
therefore become architectural considerations for connectivity
deployments, rather than purely logistical or procurement concerns.
When combined with community-centred governance and digital device
management, these practices can improve connectivity outcomes,
strengthen local capacity, and reduce environmental impact.
These operational practices strengthen community digital autonomy by
enabling communities and organisations not only to access, but also
to select, deploy, maintain, repair, reconfigure, share, reuse, and
govern the technologies and infrastructure they rely on. By
strengthening local repair and refurbishment capacity and enabling
collective governance of device lifecycles, circular device
management reduces dependence on external actors while supporting
long-term sustainability and adaptability of digital infrastructure
according to local needs and priorities.
This document draws on operational experience from several
deployments, including:
* eReuse.org deployments in Catalonia and Madrid (Spain), involving
social enterprises (Solidança, ReutilizaK) and reuse circuits that
coordinate donors, refurbishers, and recipient organisations;
* University-linked programmes in Argentina (EKOA/UNLP), integrating
refurbishment, training, and community engagement;
* TAU/RAEE in Rosario (Argentina), where a specialised cooperative
carries out device diagnostics, repair, data sanitisation,
refurbishment, and e-waste management, while community centres
focus on access, accompaniment, and territorial programmes;
* Hahatay initiative in Senegal, combining device availability with
local digital inclusion efforts in rural and peri-urban contexts.
Several initiatives apply collective access and community-ownership
models in which devices are managed as shared resources rather than
permanently transferred private property [Ostrom1990]. Digital
lifecycle tracking supports transparency, accountability, and
coordination across donors, refurbishers, and communities, an
approach analysed in prior research [Roura2025].
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
1.1. Background and Relationship to Prior IRTF Work
This document builds on prior IRTF work that recognizes Internet
connectivity infrastructure as a socio-technical system in which
protocols, infrastructure, governance, and human practices interact.
In particular, [RFC8280] established the importance of systematically
considering human rights impacts during protocol development, while
[RFC9620] further refined practical guidance for identifying and
documenting such impacts in IETF and IRTF work.
While this document does not define or modify Internet protocols, it
addresses operational dependencies that directly affect whether
connectivity infrastructure can be deployed and used in ways that
respect human rights, support sustainability, and enable meaningful
participation. Device availability, repairability, governance, and
lifecycle management shape who can participate in networked systems,
under what conditions, and with what degree of autonomy. As such,
these operational practices constitute a pre-condition for realizing
the rights-aware Internet architectures envisioned in prior IRTF
research.
This document therefore complements protocol-level human rights
considerations by documenting empirical, deployment-level practices
that enable human-centred outcomes in real-world connectivity
deployments.
1.2. Meaningful Connectivity: Context and Frameworks
The ITU Universal Meaningful Connectivity (UMC) framework [ITU-UMC]
provides a widely recognised baseline by identifying six dimensions
of meaningful connectivity: quality, availability, affordability,
security, device access, and skills.
The Internet Society, which contributed to the development of the ITU
definition, frames these dimensions as enabling conditions that must
be present together: appropriate and adequate devices, sufficient
quality of service, digital skills, and a safe and secure experience
for users, alongside affordable and available access [ISOC-MC2025].
It further identifies community-centred connectivity
solutions—deployed, operated, and adapted by the people who use them,
and accompanied by skills development—as a viable path to meaningful
connectivity, a framing closely aligned with the practices described
in this document.
Civil-society analyses, notably by APC and the Global Information
Society Watch [GISW2024], extend this framing by considering not only
technical access (infrastructure, connectivity, devices), but also
social relevance, community agency, cultural and political
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
meaningfulness, inclusive governance, and sustainable local
ownership. These perspectives recognise that connectivity gains
value when aligned with community practices, needs, and aspirations.
The Internet Governance Forum Policy Network on Meaningful Access
(PNMA) further emphasises that meaningful connectivity involves the
ability of communities to create, publish, and access services and
content locally, including in local languages, rather than acting
solely as consumers of externally hosted services [IGF-PNMA2024].
Some literature refers to similar concepts using the term “meaningful
access”, particularly in civil-society and Internet governance
discussions. In this document, the term “meaningful connectivity” is
used as the primary label while incorporating these broader
perspectives on participation, local services, and community agency.
The definition in Section 2, and the practices described in this
document, adopt this community-centred interpretation of meaningful
connectivity.
1.3. Relevance to IRTF GAIA
The IRTF GAIA Research Group investigates technical and socio-
technical approaches to extend Internet connectivity to underserved
populations. Device availability, repairability, and lifecycle
governance form a foundational layer of connectivity infrastructure
and directly affect sustainability, resilience, and adoption. These
aspects align with the GAIA research group's interest in
architectures and operational practices that enable local
infrastructure, services, and community participation in the Internet
ecosystem.
This document is intended to inform GAIA research discussions,
architectural exploration, and capacity-building efforts, while
showing areas where further research may be valuable.
2. Terminology and Scope
This document is published as an Informational RFC on the IRTF
stream. It does not specify Internet standards, protocol
requirements, or compliance criteria.
Terms such as “should”, “can”, or “may” are used in their ordinary,
descriptive sense to convey observed practices and lessons derived
from operational experience. They indicate patterns that have been
found effective in specific contexts, rather than mandatory or
normative requirements.
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
*Circular device management*: Structured operational practices that
extend device lifecycles through reuse, repair, refurbishment,
redistribution, tracking, and responsible end-of-life handling.
*Chain of custody*: A documented record of the sequence of
organisations or individuals responsible for a device during its
lifecycle, particularly during transfer, refurbishment, allocation,
and end-of-life processes, enabling accountability, traceability, and
verification of handling and processing steps.
*Collective access/community ownership*: A governance model in which
devices are managed as shared resources, with rights of use,
maintenance, and reassignment defined collectively rather than
through permanent individual ownership, following a common-pool
resource governance model. [Ostrom1990]
*Community-centred infrastructure*: Digital infrastructure (devices,
facilities, local organisations, and governance) that is locally
operated and aligned with community needs.
*Connectivity infrastructure*: In this document, the set of
components that together enable a community to participate in the
Internet, including end-user and network devices, the network
segments that connect them (often described in IETF work as the
access network), supporting facilities, and the local practices and
governance that operate and sustain them. The term is used more
broadly than the classic notion of an access network: it treats
devices and their lifecycle, together with community governance, as
integral parts of the infrastructure rather than as external
dependencies, consistent with the active, participation-oriented
framing used throughout this document.
*Commodatum (loan for use)*: A form of loan [COMMODATE] in which a
device is provided to an individual or organisation *for use without
transfer of ownership*, typically for a defined or renewable period,
and with the obligation to return the device or allow reassignment
when the agreed conditions end.
In circular device management contexts, devices provided under
commodatum support collective access by enabling maintenance,
replacement, traceability, and reassignment of devices over time,
while preserving shared stewardship and accountability.
*Device*: Any Internet-capable end-user or networking device,
including laptops, desktops, tablets, smartphones, routers, switches,
antennas, access points, and IoT equipment.
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
*Device commons*: See "Collective access/community ownership"; the
two terms are used interchangeably in this document to denote devices
managed as a shared, common-pool resource [Ostrom1990].
*Device lifecycle tracking*: The structured recording of events
throughout the operational life of a device, including acquisition,
diagnostics, refurbishment, allocation, maintenance, reallocation,
and end-of-life handling.
Lifecycle tracking enables accountability, transparency, and
coordination across multiple organisations involved in reuse
management.
*Device reuse ecosystem*: A network of organisations and actors
involved in device donation, diagnostics, refurbishment,
redistribution, and recycling, typically including donors,
refurbishers, community organisations, and recyclers.
*Community digital autonomy*: The ability of individuals,
communities, and organisations to make and implement decisions
regarding the technologies, infrastructure, data, and services they
rely on. The term is used here to emphasise community-level agency
and operational capacity; while related to "digital sovereignty" and
"self-determination", it avoids state-centric interpretations and
highlights the ability of communities to both decide and act upon
digital infrastructure and services. The capacities this involves
are discussed further in Section 4.2.
*Federated inventory/registry*: A network of interoperable device
registries that enables transparency, accountability, cross-
organisational coordination, and scaling without requiring
centralisation.
*Meaningful connectivity*: Internet access that is available,
affordable, reliable, and usable in ways that enable meaningful
participation in society and improve people’s lives.
This interpretation draws on the frameworks discussed in Section 1.2.
*Refurbisher*: An organisation or facility responsible for
evaluating, repairing, sanitizing, and preparing devices for reuse.
*Refunctionalisation*: Refurbishment or remanufacturing processes
that return an ICT device to a functional state for continued use,
possibly in a different operational or social context.
This definition is aligned with ITU-T L.1081 [ITU-T-L1081].
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
*Traceability*: The ability to record, verify and account details
about the lifecycle history of a device through digitally recorded
events, identifiers, and documentation to enable accountability,
impact measurement, and ecosystem coordination.
This document focuses on community/local-scale, decentralised
practices relevant to connectivity infrastructure, community/local
facilities, and underserved contexts. The practices are described to
inform analysis and deployment, not to mandate implementation or
establish compliance requirements.
3. Problem Statement
Despite the deployment of connectivity infrastructure, and the
contribution of external or community-driven connectivity funding
initiatives to enable meaningful participation on the Internet, many
communities remain excluded from meaningful connectivity. A
recurring reason is that user and network devices, although an
essential part of the connectivity infrastructure that communities
deploy, govern, and rely on, are treated as one-off procurement or
donations rather than as infrastructure to be maintained and
sustained over time. This leaves communities unable to keep devices
functional and available as a basis for participation. Recurring
barriers include:
* Insufficient availability of functional end-user and network
devices for households, schools, and community organisations;
* Markets dominated by non-repairable or locked-down hardware and
software, driving short usage cycles and premature disposal that
harms the environment and generates e-waste;
* Limited local repair capacity: insufficient skills, spare parts,
and tools for diagnostics, secure data handling, and
refurbishment;
* Ownership models based on permanent individual assignment, which
hinder redistribution, maintenance, reassignment to evolving
needs, and scaling;
* Absence of interoperable, digital lifecycle tracking, without
which actors cannot establish provenance, coordinate large-volume
donations, assess environmental and social impact, or build trust
among donors, refurbishers, and recipients.
Operational experience shows that, lacking collective access models
and digital traceability, communities struggle to pool devices, scale
refurbishment, assess impact, and establish accountability
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
[Roura2025]. Meaningful connectivity therefore depends not only on
deploying connectivity infrastructure, but on sustaining the devices
within it through repair, circular management, and community
governance. Addressing these together is a foundational requirement
for equitable, inclusive, and rights-preserving participation in the
Internet.
4. Principles Derived from Operational Experience
This section synthesizes recurring patterns observed across multiple
community-centred deployments involving circular device management
and connectivity provision. These principles do not constitute
prescriptive requirements or normative rules. Rather, they
articulate conditions, trade-offs, and enabling factors that have
consistently influenced the sustainability, autonomy, and social
relevance of connectivity initiatives in practice.
The principles are interdependent and should be interpreted
holistically, as they mutually reinforce (or undermine) one another
depending on local context, governance arrangements, and resource
constraints.
4.1. Device Availability as a Foundational Layer of Connectivity
Operational experience consistently shows that device availability
functions as a foundational layer of connectivity, rather than as a
peripheral or downstream concern. Even where connectivity
infrastructure exists, the absence of adequate end-user or network
devices significantly constrains effective use, adoption, and long-
term impact.
In practice, connectivity initiatives that explicitly plan for device
availability—across initial deployment, maintenance, replacement, and
reassignment—are better able to sustain connectivity over time and
adapt to changing community needs. Treating devices as part of the
connectivity system, rather than as a one-off input, reduces the risk
of stranded infrastructure and uneven participation outcomes.
4.2. Local Capacity, Repairability, and Digital Autonomy
Across deployments, local capacity to diagnose, repair, reconfigure,
and manage devices has emerged as a critical determinant of
sustainability. Dependence on external vendors, proprietary
restrictions, or non-repairable hardware often introduces long-term
fragility, cost escalation, and loss of local agency.
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
Operationally, initiatives that invest in repair skills, access to
spare parts, and locally understandable software stacks are better
positioned to maintain continuity of service and adapt technologies
to local conditions. These practices contribute directly to
community digital autonomy, reducing dependence on external actors
while strengthening long-term sustainability and adaptability, and
enabling communities to exercise collective choices over the material
and technical components of their connectivity.
Such autonomy is not only about access to devices, but about the
capacity to decide and act across multiple levels of governance.
Following a commons-based framing [Ostrom1990], these levels can be
described as:
* constitutional: who participates in decision-making;
* collective-choice: how rules and governance arrangements for
managing devices are defined;
* operational: how the shared pool of devices is used, maintained,
repaired, and adapted.
Local repair and management capacity is what makes participation at
the operational level possible, and in turn supports community
influence at the collective-choice and constitutional levels.
4.3. Collective Access Models and Commons-oriented Governance
In many underserved contexts, individual private ownership of devices
has proven insufficient to address issues of scarcity, affordability,
and unequal access. By contrast, collective access arrangements,
where devices are treated as shared resources governed through
community-defined rules, have enabled higher reuse rates, more
equitable allocation, and greater resilience to changing demand.
Operational experience indicates that commons-oriented governance
models are most effective when accompanied by clear rules for use,
maintenance, reassignment, and accountability. Such models shift
emphasis from ownership to stewardship, enabling devices to circulate
over time while remaining embedded in local social and institutional
structures.
These observations are consistent with commons-based governance
approaches, in which communities participate in defining rules at the
constitutional, collective-choice, and operational levels described
in Section 4.2 [Ostrom1990].
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
These governance models directly address power asymmetries between
vendors, donors, buyers, refurbishers, and communities by relocating
control over devices, maintenance, and lifecycle decisions.
4.4. Transparency, Traceability, and Trust across the Lifecycle
Trust among donors, refurbishers, community organisations, and users
has repeatedly emerged as a prerequisite for scalable and sustainable
reuse ecosystems. In practice, this trust is strengthened through
transparent and traceable device lifecycle management, including
documented diagnostics, data sanitisation, refurbishment steps, and
transfer histories.
Digital traceability systems, particularly when open and
interoperable, support accountability, enable impact assessment, and
reduce friction among participating actors. They also allow
communities and institutions to demonstrate responsible handling of
devices, which in turn facilitates continued donations and
institutional support.
4.5. Repairability and Lifecycle Extension as Environmental and Social
Strategy
Repair, refurbishment, and refunctionalisation are not merely
technical activities, but strategic interventions with both
environmental and social implications. Extending device lifecycles
reduces e-waste, lowers demand for new hardware production, and
mitigates environmental harm associated with extraction and disposal.
At the same time, these activities create opportunities for skill
development, employment, and local value creation. Operational
experience suggests that prioritizing reuse over premature recycling
or destruction yields the greatest combined environmental and social
benefits, provided that data protection and safety requirements are
adequately addressed.
4.6. Privacy and Security Embedded in Reuse Workflows
Reuse workflows introduce specific privacy and security risks,
particularly related to residual data, firmware integrity, and
unauthorised access to device inventories. Deployments that treat
privacy and security as integral components of refurbishment
processes, rather than as afterthoughts, are more successful in
maintaining trust and protecting users.
In practice, this includes systematic data sanitisation, clear chain-
of-custody procedures, controlled access to lifecycle records, and,
where appropriate, mechanisms to detect tampering or
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
misconfiguration. Embedding these considerations early reduces
downstream risks and reinforces the legitimacy of reuse initiatives
and trust in them.
4.7. Environmental Responsibility across the Full Device Lifecycle
Environmental responsibility in circular device management extends
beyond end-of-life recycling. Operational experience highlights the
importance of considering environmental impacts across the entire
lifecycle, including procurement decisions, refurbishment practices,
logistics, and final disposal.
Initiatives that integrate environmental considerations throughout
the lifecycle—rather than focusing solely on waste management—are
better aligned with broader sustainability goals and regulatory
frameworks. This integrated perspective also supports more accurate
assessment of environmental benefits, such as avoided emissions and
reduced material extraction.
4.8. Community-rooted Governance and Social Relevance
Finally, sustained impact depends on grounding device management and
connectivity initiatives in local governance structures and social
priorities. Deployments that involve communities in decision-making,
regarding allocation, acceptable use, maintenance responsibilities,
and future evolution, are more likely to produce socially relevant
and durable outcomes.
Operational experience underscores that “meaningful connectivity” is
context-dependent: its value emerges from alignment with local
practices, cultural norms, and collective aspirations. Community-
rooted governance enables initiatives to adapt over time, respond to
feedback, and remain relevant beyond initial deployment phases.
5. Operational Practices
5.1. Digitalised Circular Device Management
Observed circular device management systems typically include:
* Unique device identification (e.g., labels/QR codes) and lifecycle
records;
* Structured triage, diagnostics, and condition grading;
* Secure data sanitisation steps recorded in device logs;
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
* Chain-of-custody tracking across donors, refurbishers, and
recipient organisations and end-user persons;
* Interoperability with other inventory and infrastructure systems
(e.g., enterprise resource planning systems, device registries, or
network asset registries) where beneficial;
* Support for processing large-volume device donations or
procurement across multiple refurbishers to improve throughput,
quality control, and traceability;
* Optional tamper-evident or cryptographically verifiable logging
mechanisms for accountability in multi-stakeholder ecosystems.
Several deployments supporting these practices rely on open-source
software tooling for device inventory, diagnostics, and lifecycle
tracking. Such tools enable adaptation by different organisations
and communities while supporting transparency, quality assurance in
refurbishment processes, and the ability to scale device reuse
operations across multiple actors.
Together, these lifecycle-management capabilities enable transparency
and coordinated reuse circuits where donors, refurbishers, community
and formal local organisations, and beneficiary programmes can
operate with shared visibility and responsibilities.
5.2. Repair, Training, and Capacity Building
Effective programmes typically:
* Distinguish between specialised refurbishing tasks (diagnosis,
repair, sanitisation, refurbishment) and community-level access/
accompaniment functions;
* Provide training that combines basic hardware diagnostics and
repair (electronics), locally sourced spare parts, operating
system and application installation and configuration (software),
and practical repair and maintenance tasks;
* Use accessible pedagogies that reduce barriers for youth, women,
and marginalised populations;
* Integrate digital literacy and social inclusion objectives
(education, employability, access to services);
* Provide pathways for income generation or employment (e.g., social
enterprises, cooperatives, paid refurbishment);
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
* Use digital traceability systems to compute environmental
indicators (e.g., avoided e-waste, estimated CO₂ savings) and
social indicators (e.g., beneficiary counts, institutions served),
reinforcing accountability for donors, policymakers, and
communities.
5.3. Alignment with Connectivity Infrastructure
Device reuse is most effective when coordinated with connectivity
infrastructure deployments through:
* Including network equipment (routers, switches, antennas, access
points) in lifecycle tracking where relevant;
* Aligning device availability with connectivity provision (so
devices reach users and institutions that can connect);
* Supporting local repair and reconfiguration of networking
equipment where feasible;
* Tracking performance and replacement cycles to reduce downtime and
avoid stranded connectivity infrastructure.
This document does not assume the presence of a specific connectivity
infrastructure. The practices described apply to contexts where
connectivity is provided through a variety of deployment models,
including commercial, community-driven, institutional, or other
locally relevant arrangements.
5.4. Community-centred Meaningful Connectivity
Connectivity initiatives may:
* Engage communities in defining meaningful use for them (education,
work, health, services, civic participation, cultural expression,
etc.);
* Combine devices, skills development, and governance to build
holistic digital ecosystems;
* Support shared facilities (community centres, libraries, schools)
and collective access models where appropriate, rather than
assuming all devices are individually owned;
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
* Design for social inclusion: enable participation of
underrepresented groups (women, minorities, youth, adults),
account for cultural and linguistic diversity, and empower
communities to use connectivity for their own goals (education,
civic engagement, small-scale enterprises, local content creation,
environmental monitoring, etc.);
* Respect local agency and context, enabling adaptation of workflows
and priorities over time;
* Include feedback loops and governance mechanisms to evolve
deployments according to expressed community needs.
Access to a device does not by itself determine how that device is
used. Operational experience across the initiatives in Section 7
points to a recurring tension between passive consumption (for
example, entertainment and commercial social media) and meaningful
use (education, content production, access to public services, and
community organisation). The practices surveyed here are generally
oriented towards the latter: refurbished devices are typically
introduced together with training and a hosting institution or
community space that gives the use a purpose. Reported uses include
digital literacy and ICT skills; support for formal and non-formal
education, including, in some cases, virtual secondary schooling;
access to e-government services, administrative procedures, and
online forms; preparation of personal and work documents (letters,
CVs, event materials); content and audiovisual production, graphic
design, and community communications; and the delivery of public and
community services in institutions with limited resources. A
consistent observation is that the social value of connectivity
increases when users move from passive consumption towards active
production and participation, which depends not only on networks and
devices but also on the skills and institutional arrangements that
surround their use.
5.5. Collective Access and Commons-based Device Governance
Where appropriate, communities may treat devices as a shared commons.
Implementations of collective access typically include:
* Assigning use-rights instead of permanent ownership to individuals
or organisations;
* Allowing devices to circulate across multiple users and community
spaces over time;
* Establishing clear governance rules for allocation, maintenance
responsibilities, reassignment, and end-of-life decisions;
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
* Using open-source digital tools to track device history,
condition, transfers, and responsible recycling;
* Embedding accountability mechanisms so actors (donors,
refurbishers, community managers) can verify device provenance and
lifecycle steps.
This model has been validated operationally in reuse ecosystems and
formalised in prior research [Roura2025].
5.6. Federated Registries and Cross-community Coordination
Federated device registries may be used to coordinate reuse across
organisations and regions while preserving local governance.
Operationally, such federated registries can function similarly to
inventory coordination systems used in other circular-economy sectors
(e.g., automotive parts reuse), where distributed inventories are
searchable across multiple organisations. This allows participating
actors to discover available devices, coordinate refurbishment
workflows, identify substitute components, and estimate demand for
spare parts or devices across regions. Such registries can support:
* Distributed metadata sharing and device lookup;
* Cross-organisational coordination for batches and surplus devices;
* Shared accountability while avoiding centralised control;
* Federation across communities with different legal, operational,
or cultural contexts;
* Multi-stakeholder governance.
Federation is essential when devices flow across regions,
institutions, and countries.
5.7. Secure Data Sanitisation
When devices are refurbished for reuse, data sanitisation should
follow recognised good practices such as ITU-T L.1081 [ITU-T-L1081].
Implementers select and apply appropriate methods (e.g., clear,
purge, or destruct) depending on media type and sensitivity, before
reuse or redistribution.
Implementations should maintain documented chain-of-custody logs and
sanitisation records (preferably digitally linked to device lifecycle
entries) to provide verifiable proof of data erasure, increase donor
trust, and protect privacy.
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
Where feasible, refunctionalisation (refurbishment and reuse) is
preferred over destruction, consistent with circular economy and
environmental sustainability goals [ITU-T-L1081].
5.8. Architectural Considerations for Connectivity Infrastructure
The practices described in this document imply architectural
considerations relevant to GAIA research, including:
* Device availability as part of the connectivity architecture, not
an external dependency.
* Device availability, lifecycle management, and governance
mechanisms influence the long-term sustainability and autonomy of
connectivity infrastructures.
* Federated registries as a decentralised control-plane component
for device lifecycle management and accountability
(verifiability).
* Alignment between network deployment lifecycles and device
lifecycles.
* Reduction of centralised/remote dependencies through local
maintenance and governance.
These considerations may inform future research on connectivity
architectures, operational sustainability, and resilient deployment
models for underserved and community-centred connectivity
infrastructures.
6. Human Rights, Security, Privacy, and Sustainability Considerations
Consistent with [RFC8280] and [RFC9620], this section identifies how
the operational practices described here can be understood as
affecting human rights outcomes through their influence on
connectivity, agency, sustainability, and autonomy at the device and
infrastructure layer.
6.1. Human Rights
Device availability and governance affect:
* The ability of individuals and communities to participate in and
benefit from the Internet and from meaningful connectivity;
* Community digital autonomy through repairability, reuse, and local
governance capacity;
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
* The right to privacy and data protection in shared or reused
devices;
* Environmental justice in communities impacted by resource
extraction and e-waste.
These effects arise through operational risk vectors, including:
* Limited availability of functional devices leading to constrained
participation and informational agency;
* Inadequate data sanitisation creating exposure to unauthorised
data disclosure;
* Non-repairable or vendor-locked devices reducing community digital
autonomy and local self-determination;
* Inequitable disposal practices contributing to environmental harm
for vulnerable groups.
Circular device management practices mitigate risks associated with:
* Data leaks resulting from inadequate data sanitisation;
* Surveillance risks arising from persistent identifiers, firmware,
or misconfigured software;
* Exclusion caused by vendor lock-in or non-repairable hardware;
* Unsafe, informal, or inequitable disposal of electronic waste.
These practices support community digital autonomy and relate to
concepts of community self-determination in digital environments,
understood as the ability of communities to define and pursue their
own technological trajectories. By enabling communities not only to
provide connectivity, but also to shape, maintain, and adapt the
infrastructures on which they depend, these practices reinforce
social, cultural, and economic participation, as well as the ability
of individuals and communities to exercise agency in their digital
lives, consistent with human rights-oriented considerations in
Internet architecture and protocols.
Transparency and lifecycle traceability also support individuals' and
organisations' ability to understand and verify how devices and
associated data are handled, reinforcing access to information,
accountability, and elements of informational self-determination.
Access to information and transparency relate to the "right to know"
in governance and accountability contexts.
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
This document is conceptually aligned with prior IRTF work on human
rights considerations, including [RFC8280] and [RFC9620], which
analyse how protocol design and architectural choices can affect the
exercise of human rights. While those documents focus on protocol
development, this document addresses complementary operational
conditions—such as device availability, repairability, lifecycle
management, and governance—that influence whether such rights can be
realised in practice.
6.2. Security
Two distinct aspects of security arise in these deployments and are
addressed by different means.
The first concerns the integrity of the circular device management
process itself—the risks introduced by sourcing, refurbishing, and
redistributing devices. These risks include:
* Tampered or compromised devices;
* Malicious firmware;
* Insufficient data erasure;
* Unauthorised access to device details in inventories and
registries;
* Forged or altered device histories.
These risks can undermine trust in reuse ecosystems and shared
devices, and directly reduce the sustainability of community
connectivity. They are addressed through a combination of staff
training, quality-control procedures, and inventory and lifecycle-
management software, including:
* Verified testing and refurbishment workflows;
* Secure firmware reinstallation and configuration baselines;
* Cryptographic or tamper-evident logging where appropriate;
* Role-based access control for lifecycle systems;
* Periodic auditing and peer-review among participating
organisations.
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
The second concerns the security of people as they use the Internet
related to online safety and risks on social-media platforms,
independent of how the device was sourced. These risks are not
specific to refurbished devices; in the deployments surveyed, they
are addressed through the digital-citizenship and online-safety
components of user training described in Section 7.
6.3. Privacy
Reuse systems should apply:
* Data minimisation and least-privilege access;
* Local-first and decentralised architectures;
* Strong sanitisation and verification practices;
* Transparent documentation of data handling;
* Encryption for sensitive metadata where stored or transferred.
Device identifiers should be abstracted or scoped appropriately when
feasible to reduce long-term cross-context correlation risks.
Lifecycle traceability introduces a design tension between
transparency and privacy. While device identifiers and lifecycle
records support accountability, auditing, and reuse coordination,
poorly designed traceability systems may enable unintended tracking
or surveillance. Implementations should therefore minimise exposure
of persistent identifiers, limit access to lifecycle metadata through
appropriate governance and access controls, and use scoped or
pseudonymous identifiers where feasible.
6.4. Environmental and Sustainability
Circular device management reduces [Roura2026]:
* Demand for new hardware;
* Raw material extraction;
* CO₂ emissions, land and water pollution from manufacturing;
* e-waste in vulnerable communities;
while also contributing to economic inclusion by creating financial
opportunities, increasing economic independence, and supporting
sustainable income sources.
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
Reuse and refurbishment (after secure sanitisation) should be
prioritised over disposal. By enabling safe refunctionalisation of
devices that would otherwise be discarded, communities reduce e-waste
and environmental harm, consistent with circular economy principles
and L.1081 guidance that supports reconditioning over destruction
[ITU-T-L1081].
7. Deployment Case Studies (Informative)
This section describes deployments by [EREUSE] in Spain, [EKOA-UNLP]
and [TAU-RAEE] in Argentina, and [HAHATAY] in Senegal that illustrate
how these practices are applied in diverse contexts.
7.1. Catalonia and Madrid (Spain): eReuse.org ecosystem and social
enterprises
The eReuse.org ecosystem coordinates reuse circuits that connect
donors (public and private organisations), social refurbishers,
recyclers, community organisations, and beneficiaries [EREUSE].
Typical operational characteristics include:
* Intake of unused devices through institutional volume donation
channels;
* Structured diagnostics, refurbishment, and grading by social
enterprises;
* Digital lifecycle traceability through open-source inventory
tooling, supporting transparency and accountability;
* Allocation of refurbished devices to individuals and organisations
through models that may include subsidised pricing, sponsorship,
and collective access arrangements;
* Measurement approaches that support reporting of environmental and
social outcomes (e.g., devices reused, avoided e-waste,
beneficiary reach).
eReuse deployments also experiment with collective access and
ownership: devices may remain part of a shared pool and be
redistributed as needs evolve, rather than being permanently assigned
to individuals, increasing reuse cycles and long-term availability
[Roura2025].
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
In terms of use, devices refurbished by social enterprises in this
ecosystem (such as Solidança and ReutilizaK) are allocated to
schools, social organisations, and households at risk of digital
exclusion, supporting digital literacy, schoolwork, and access to
online public services.
7.2. La Plata (Argentina): EKOA/UNLP programmes integrating
refurbishment, training, and outreach
EKOA at the National University of La Plata (UNLP) operates
university-linked initiatives that integrate refurbishment, training,
and outreach [EKOA-UNLP]. EKOA manages its own production plant for
refurbished technological equipment. Observed characteristics
include:
* Involves students, faculty, non-teaching staff, researchers, and
extension practitioners linked to university ecosystems, who
perform activities within and outside the e-waste management and
refurbishment plant, including diagnostics, repair,
refunctionalisation, and data sanitisation.
* Refurbished devices are distributed to schools at all levels,
community kitchens and food distribution centres, NGOs, hospitals,
health centres, fire brigades, social organisations, university
students, Indigenous communities, migrants, older adults, and
other vulnerable communities. Devices are typically delivered
under loan-for-use (commodatum) or chain-of-custody arrangements.
* The plant serves as a reception and training site for students
from technical secondary schools and universities, who engage in
training activities, work-based learning experiences, and student
projects.
* The plant is also a training space for cooperatives of urban
recyclers, empowering youth and adults with practical skills
across the device and e-waste management chain.
* Training activities are organised with equitable participation
across genders.
* Environmental responsibility is integrated through secure channels
across the e-waste management chain and promoted to donors and
beneficiaries of refunctionalised devices.
* Device reuse is generally linked to digital literacy programmes
and territorial initiatives that provide benefits to the wider
community (e.g., hospitals, fire brigades, public services).
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
* The initiative includes environmental education projects aimed at
primary and secondary schools.
In terms of use, refurbished devices serve two broad purposes. For
education and social inclusion, they support digital literacy, formal
and non-formal learning, communication with family and social
networks, and access to information and online procedures, and in
restricted settings such as prisons or rural and Indigenous
communities they are often the main point of entry to the digital
environment. For institutional and community services, public
organisations use them to support service delivery, administrative
and cultural-preservation tasks, institutional communication, and the
production of audiovisual and educational content, enabling a shift
from passive consumption towards active creation of knowledge and
services.
7.3. Rosario (Argentina): TAU/RAEE and territorial programmes in villas
TAU/RAEE operates a community-embedded ecosystem in and around
Rosario [TAU-RAEE]. A specialised cooperative (TAU) carries out the
technical processes of diagnostics, repair, data sanitisation,
refurbishment, and e-waste management, while community centres and
territorial programmes focus on access, accompaniment, and local
participation.
Observed characteristics include:
* A cooperative of young workers (TAU) manages the e-waste and
refurbishment plant where diagnostics, repair, and data
sanitisation are carried out.
* Community centres do not perform the technical refurbishment
themselves, but act as coordination and connectivity support
points.
* Training programmes empower youth and adults with practical
skills.
* Refurbished devices are redistributed to schools, families,
cooperatives, and social organisations, generally under cession-
of-use schemes rather than as permanent donations, including
maintenance and replacement, to preserve traceability.
* Inclusive pedagogical approaches prioritize women and
underrepresented groups.
* Environmental responsibility is integrated through safe recycling
channels.
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
* Device reuse is connected to digital literacy programmes.
These community-driven refurbishing and connectivity efforts embody
community-centred meaningful connectivity: devices and networks are
locally governed, refurbishment and reuse are collective, and
infrastructure is shaped by community needs and practices, not by
vendor-driven or top-down deployment. [GISW2024]
This model demonstrates how circular device management can be
sustainably embedded in informal settlements and marginalised
communities.
This case illustrates a division of labour model that can be
replicated: specialised refurbishers/cooperatives ensure technical
integrity and sanitisation, while community organisations ensure
access, inclusion, and community-centred governance.
In terms of use, equipment installed in community spaces supports
training in digital citizenship, online safety, and basic computing,
complemented by locally organised courses (sometimes with partner
institutions) on topics such as streaming, 3D printing, and
programming. Residents use the devices to carry out online
procedures and to prepare practical materials such as letters, CVs,
business cards, and event banners, and some spaces are introducing
virtual secondary schooling with synchronous classes. A reported
constraint is operational rather than technical: meaningful use
depends on the community space being open and staffed by volunteers
with enough knowledge to guide users, so sustaining these uses
requires supporting the hosting organisations, not only supplying
devices.
7.4. Hahatay (Senegal): Device availability and inclusion in rural and
peri-urban contexts
The Hahatay initiative addresses device scarcity in rural and peri-
urban contexts where new hardware can be unaffordable or unavailable
[HAHATAY]. Observed characteristics include:
* Sourcing and reusing devices as a practical prerequisite to
meaningful connectivity;
* Integration with community programmes that support digital
literacy and community benefit;
* Emphasis on locally appropriate maintenance and operational
continuity.
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
These contexts highlight the importance of aligning connectivity
infrastructure plans with device availability and repair capacity to
avoid stranded infrastructure.
In terms of use, refurbished computers let young people whose prior
access was limited to smartphones and social media move on to broader
digital skills. Training reaches secondary and university students,
young social-media users, and out-of-school girls, and covers basic
digital literacy and internet use, office tools, digital
communication and community management, graphic design, and
audiovisual production. Artificial intelligence has not yet been
integrated into the courses, but the initiative is exploring
introductory modules on using such tools responsibly and
understanding their limits; in one earlier course, participants
produced a short film reflecting on the risks of AI.
8. Replication Guidelines
Organisations seeking to replicate these practices should consider:
* Establishing partnerships among donors, specialised refurbishers,
community organisations, and (where relevant) connectivity
infrastructure operators;
* Deploying open-source, interoperable inventory tooling to enable
traceability and accountability;
* Developing training pathways (diagnostics, software installation/
configuration, repair, sanitisation, responsible e-waste
handling);
* Selecting appropriate governance models, including collective
access to devices where it improves equity and sustainability;
* Pairing devices with digital-skills and digital-citizenship
support and a hosting institution or community space, so that
connectivity supports meaningful use (education, services, content
creation, community organisation) rather than passive consumption
alone;
* Aligning device availability with connectivity provision and local
connectivity conditions;
* Defining privacy and security controls, including sanitisation
verification and role-based access to inventories;
* Establishing impact reporting for environmental and social
outcomes to maintain trust and continuous improvement;
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
* Complying with applicable e-waste and refunctionalisation
regulations.
9. Implications for Research and Deployment
Operational experience also highlights the importance of capacity
building alongside architectural design. Training programmes that
integrate device repair, refurbishment, software installation, data
sanitisation, and governance practices are critical enablers of
sustainable connectivity.
Research communities, including the IRTF GAIA Research Group, may
contribute to this area by documenting reusable operational patterns,
facilitating knowledge exchange across deployments, and developing
resources that connect connectivity architectures with sustainability
and repairability considerations.
The practices described in this document suggest that device
lifecycle management, repairability, ownership, and governance should
be considered integral components of connectivity infrastructures.
Future research may explore architectural approaches that integrate
device registries, lifecycle transparency and accountability, and
community governance mechanisms into connectivity deployments. Open
research questions raised by these practices include:
* How can federated registries coordinate device management and
reuse within and across organisations and regions while preserving
local governance and avoiding centralised control?
* How can lifecycle traceability be reconciled with privacy,
limiting persistent identifiers and surveillance risk?
* How can network-deployment lifecycles be aligned with device
lifecycles to reduce stranded infrastructure?
* How can the economic, social, and environmental sustainability
impacts of user and network devices in Internet infrastructures be
assessed across their lifecycle, and how should the benefits of
connecting more people and devices be weighed against the
associated material extraction, energy consumption, and e-waste?
Understanding how device ecosystems interact with connectivity
infrastructure, community participation, and sustainability
objectives may contribute to more resilient and inclusive Internet
connectivity models.
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
10. IANA considerations
This document has no IANA actions.
11. Acknowledgements
The authors thank the participating communities and organisations
whose operational experience informed this document, including
eReuse.org [EREUSE], with Solidança [SOLIDANCA] and ReutilizaK
[REUTILIZAK] as member social enterprises, EKOA/UNLP [EKOA-UNLP],
TAU/RAEE [TAU-RAEE], Hahatay [HAHATAY], and the community
organisations and beneficiaries involved in deployment, training, and
reuse circuits.
The authors also acknowledge the contributions of Juan Flores
(ReutilizaK), Daniel Florin (Solidança), David Franquesa
(eReuse.org), Sergio Giménez (hahatay.org), and Pedro Vilchez
(eReuse.org), whose practical experience and insights informed the
development of the practices described in this document.
12. References
12.1. Informative References
[RFC8280] ten Oever, N. and C. Cath, "Research into Human Rights
Protocol Considerations", RFC 8280, DOI 10.17487/RFC8280,
October 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8280>.
[RFC9620] Grover, G. and N. ten Oever, "Guidelines for Human Rights
Protocol and Architecture Considerations", RFC 9620,
DOI 10.17487/RFC9620, September 2024,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9620>.
12.2. Informative References
[COMMODATE]
Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, "Commodate",
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commodate>.
[EKOA-UNLP]
Universidad Nacional de La Plata, "EKOA programme
website", <https://ekoa.unlp.edu.ar/>.
[EREUSE] eReuse.org, "eReuse.org initiative website",
<https://ereuse.org/>.
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
[GISW2024] Association for Progressive Communications (APC),
"Meaningful connectivity: What does 'meaningful' mean in
the context of the Internet?", Global Information Society
Watch (GISWatch), 2024, <https://gisw.org/en/internet-
governance-civil-society-participation-internet-rights/
what-does-meaningful>.
[HAHATAY] Hahatay Network, "Hahatay community initiatives website",
<https://hahatay.network/>.
[IGF-PNMA2024]
Internet Governance Forum Policy Network on Meaningful
Access, "How to Conciliate "Access" with "Meaningful":
Practices from the Community", IGF Output Report, 2024,
<https://www.intgovforum.org/en/
filedepot_download/314/28585>.
[ISOC-MC2025]
Internet Society, "What is Meaningful Connectivity?",
October 2025,
<https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2025/10/what-is-
meaningful-connectivity/>.
[ITU-T-L1081]
International Telecommunication Union, "Recommendation
ITU-T L.1081: Good practices for the sanitization of the
information storage media in end-of-life ICT user
devices", July 2025,
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-L.1081>.
[ITU-UMC] International Telecommunication Union, "Universal
Meaningful Connectivity Framework", International
Telecommunication Union, 2022, <https://www.itu.int/itu-
d/sites/projectumc/home/aboutumc/>.
[Ostrom1990]
Ostrom, E., "Governing the Commons: The Evolution of
Institutions for Collective Action", Cambridge University
Press, 1990.
[REUTILIZAK]
ReutilizaK, "Social enterprise from the La Kalle
association website", <https://reutilizak.org/>.
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
[Roura2025]
Roura, M., Navarro, L., and R. Meseguer, "Reuse of ICT
devices as commons: a property rights and governance model
for collective access", ACM Journal on Computing and
Sustainable Societies, 2025,
<https://doi.org/10.1145/3770067>.
[Roura2026]
Roura, M., Navarro, L., and R. Meseguer, "Assessing the
impacts of computer reuse for digital inclusion from
product information", Cleaner Production Letters, Volume
10, Article 100123, 2026,
<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clpl.2025.100123>.
[SOLIDANCA]
Solidança, "Solidança social enterprise website",
<https://solidanca.cat/>.
[TAU-RAEE] TAU/RAEE, "TAU – Gestión de Residuos de Aparatos
Eléctricos y Electrónicos", <https://tau.org.ar/raee/>.
Authors' Addresses
Leandro Navarro
ISOC.CAT
Barcelona
Spain
Email: leandro@ereuse.org
Mireia Roura
eReuse.org
Barcelona
Spain
Email: m.roura@ereuse.org
Eduardo Rodriguez
TAU/RAEE
Rosario
Argentina
Email: eduardorodriguez@tau.org.ar
Viviana Ambrosi
EKOA, Facultad de Informática - UNLP
La Plata
Argentina
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft Circular Device Operational Practices June 2026
Email: viviana.ambrosi@ekoa.unlp.edu.ar
Navarro, et al. Expires 23 December 2026 [Page 31]