Operational Practices for Digital Autonomy and Meaningful Connectivity through Circular Management of User and Network Devices

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 ) extends device lifetimes and maximises reuse before final recycling or disposal. 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 . Digital lifecycle tracking supports transparency, accountability, and coordination across donors, refurbishers, and communities, an approach analysed in prior research .

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, established the importance of systematically considering human rights impacts during protocol development, while 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.

Meaningful Connectivity: Context and Frameworks The ITU Universal Meaningful Connectivity (UMC) framework 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 . 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 , extend this framing by considering not only technical access (infrastructure, connectivity, devices), but also social relevance, community agency, cultural and political 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 . 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 , and the practices described in this document, adopt this community-centred interpretation of meaningful connectivity.

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.

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. 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. 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 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. 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 . 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 . 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 . 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 . 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.

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 . 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.

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.

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.

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. 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 , 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.

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 . These governance models directly address power asymmetries between vendors, donors, buyers, refurbishers, and communities by relocating control over devices, maintenance, and lifecycle decisions.

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.

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.

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 misconfiguration. Embedding these considerations early reduces downstream risks and reinforces the legitimacy of reuse initiatives and trust in them.

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.

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.

Operational Practices

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; 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.

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); 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.

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.

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; 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 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.

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; 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 .

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.

Secure Data Sanitisation When devices are refurbished for reuse, data sanitisation should follow recognised good practices such as ITU-T L.1081 . 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. Where feasible, refunctionalisation (refurbishment and reuse) is preferred over destruction, consistent with circular economy and environmental sustainability goals .

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.

Human Rights, Security, Privacy, and Sustainability Considerations Consistent with and , 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.

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; 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. This document is conceptually aligned with prior IRTF work on human rights considerations, including and , 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.

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. 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 .

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.

Environmental and Sustainability Circular device management reduces : 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. 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 .

Deployment Case Studies (Informative) This section describes deployments by in Spain, and in Argentina, and in Senegal that illustrate how these practices are applied in diverse contexts.

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 . 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 . 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.

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 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). 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.

Rosario (Argentina): TAU/RAEE and territorial programmes in villas TAU/RAEE operates a community-embedded ecosystem in and around Rosario . 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. 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. 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.

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 . 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. 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.

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; Complying with applicable e-waste and refunctionalisation regulations.

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.

IANA considerations This document has no IANA actions.

Acknowledgements The authors thank the participating communities and organisations whose operational experience informed this document, including eReuse.org , with Solidança and ReutilizaK as member social enterprises, EKOA/UNLP , TAU/RAEE , 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.