[ppml] Revision to 2008-3

Thus spake "Jay Hennigan" <jay at impulse.net>
> Such community networks are somewhat of a special case in that they
> aren't quite LIRs as they have no "customers" other than the members of
> the cooperative, but they aren't end users in that they exist for the
> purpose of distributing access to their members (who are customer-like).
>
> IMHO, the best approach to such organizations is to modify the LIR
> definition to include them as LIRs.   The technical model is more
> ISP-like than end-user-like.

This, to me, is more sensible than trying to create a third category of 
registrants.  In all of the discussion to date, I haven't found any 
technical differentiators between "community networks" and LIRs.  Remember, 
not all LIRs are ISPs.

AIUI, the problems "community networks" face are financial and legal, not 
policy, so the policy process is not the right way to provide them 
assistance.  Therefore, I must oppose this proposal.  If some part of the 
LIR policy needs to be changed to account for all end-users not being 
"customers" (but, perhaps, "members" or some other term), I would be in 
favor of that.  I would also be in favor of the BoT adopting some sort of 
alternate fee schedule for not-for-profit or member-based organizations.

(I do see potential problems in who signs the RSA, who is responsible for 
paying fees, etc. in very loose organizations, but I have confidence that 
staff and counsel will work through those issues best without our 
interference.)

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking