[arin-ppml] Revised/Re-titled - Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks

[ARIN]

The following has been revised and re-titled:

* Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks

Revised text is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_8.html

You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will 
evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft 
policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as 
stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these 
principles are:

* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
* Technically Sound
* Supported by the Community

The PDP can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html

Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html

Regards,

Sean Hopkins
Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)





Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks

Problem Statement:

The Community Networks section of the NRPM has only been used once since 
implementation in January 2010. Proposal ARIN-2016-7, to increase the 
number of use cases, was abandoned by the Advisory Council due to lack 
of feedback. Proposal ARIN 2017-2, to remove all mention of community 
networks from NRPM met with opposition by the community. Many responded 
that the definition of "community network" was too narrow, which could 
be the reason for lack of uptake.

In the discussion at ARIN 40, it was clear that more than just the 
definition of a community network needed revision and that community 
networks need to have allocations, not assignments. Additionally, 
community networks need to make reassignments to end-users in accordance 
with applicable policies.
​​​​​​
Policy statement:

Replace section 2.11 with the following;

2.11 Community Network

A community network is deployed, operated, and governed by its users, 
for the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity to the 
community it services. Users of the network or other volunteers must 
play a primary role in the governance of the organization, whereas other 
functions may be handled by either paid staff or volunteers.

Rename section 6.5.9 and revise the last sentence as follows;

6.5.9. Community Network Allocations

While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type 
organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much 
tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they 
tend to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather 
than provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section 
seeks to provide a policy that is more friendly to those environments by 
allowing community network to receive a smaller allocation than other 
LIRs or commercial ISPs.

Community networks may also qualify under section 6.5.2 as a regular LIR.

Section 6.5.9.1 is not changing, but is included here for completeness;

6.5.9.1. Qualification Criteria

To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to 
ARIN's satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network 
under section 2.11 of the NRPM.

Replace section 6.5.9.2 and 6.5.9.3 with the following;

6.5.9.2. Allocation Size

Community networks are eligible only to receive an allocation of /40 of 
IPv6 resources under this section. Community networks that wish to 
receive a larger initial allocation or any subsequent allocations must 
qualify as a regular LIR, see sections 6.5.2 or 6.5.3 respectively.

6.5.9.3. Reassignments by Community Networks

Similar to other LIRs, Community networks shall make reassignments to 
end-users in accordance with applicable policies, in particular, but not 
limited to sections 6.5.4 and 6.5.5. However, they shall not reallocate 
resources under this section.

Comments:

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

Anything Else:

The rationale for restricting community networks that receive resources 
through this policy from making reallocations is that a /40 is a tiny 
IPv6 allocation and it does not seem reasonable to subdivide such a 
small allocation into even smaller reallocations.

Also, the recommended size for reassignment is /48, to even the smallest 
end-users, and therefore a /40 only provides 256 such reassignments.

If a community network needs to make reallocations, maybe to other 
cooperating community networks in their area, they should apply as, or 
become, a regular LIR. As the smallest regular LIR, they would get a 
/36, allowing more than sufficient room to subdivide the allocation into 
several reasonable sized reallocations as necessary.