[ppml] Revision to 2008-3

Tue Apr 1 05:54:02 EDT 2008

Owen,

An observation. The ARIN region consists of more countries than the US, hence citing sections of the US tax code is probably not a good thing to do. I see that you have included the phrase "or local equivalent" but that is not necessarily clear. Perhaps, simply stating not for profit would be sufficient.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
> Owen DeLong
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:36 AM
> To: Josh King
> Cc: ppml at arin.net; policy at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Revision to 2008-3
>
> While I support the idea of community networks, I oppose this policy as
> written.
>
> The definition in section 2.8 does not qualify a number of true
> community
> networks in my perspective, and, does qualify a number of commercial
> entities which should not receive community network status.
>
> I would like to see the definition include at least the following
> attributes:
>
>         +       IRS 501(c)3 or local equivalent not for profit status
> (501(c)5
>                 should not qualify in my opinion).
>
>         +       The network should be able to be organized for purposes
> which
>                 may include connecting residences, but, could also be
> other
>                 purposes, such as supporting emergency or disaster-
> related
>                 communications, providing connectivity amongst
> collections
>                 of not-for-profits in the area, or,  a host of other
> purposes
>                 I may not be able to imagine at the moment.  Point
> being that
>                 ANY community-oriented purpose should be supported by
>                 a community networks policy and not just the connection
> of
>                 individual residents.
>
> I think that community networks should have the choice as to whether
> their implementation is more appropriate to an allocation or an
> assignment.  I can see reasons for both and differing circumstances
> which could require either.  At least one poster on this list suggested
> that the community network should be required to provide services
> to at least 50 distinct entities, so, in that case, it would almost be
> a requirement to issue allocations only.  The policy as written only
> supports assignments.  I believe that both should be allowed.  I
> don't agree with the other poster about some arbitrary entry point
> of the number of distinct entities connected.
>
> Owen
>
> On Apr 1, 2008, at 6:57 AM, Josh King wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Here's a revision of the 2008-3 policy proposal based upon the staff
> > recommendations. Sorry for the extreme lateness, I did not receive
> the
> > staff recommendations until yesterday due to problems with my email.
> > I've attempted to address the concerns expressed by staff, but some
> > points I've expressed may require further clarification, and I look
> > forward to further staff comments.
> >
> > Changes:
> > Added section 6.5.9 as per recommendation, listing allocation and
> user
> > requirements for Community Networks allocations. Largely based upon
> > 6.5.8.2 and .3, with revisions to attempt to reflect the fact that a
> > Community Network is neither an end-user or LIR.
> >
> > Modified section 6.5.8.1b to refer to section 6.5.9.
> >
> > -- Policy Proposal 2008-3
> > Community Networks IPv6 Allocation
> >
> > Author: Joshua King
> >
> > Proposal Version: 1
> >
> > Date: 4 March 2008
> >
> > Proposal type: new
> >
> > Policy term: permanent
> >
> > Policy statement:
> >
> > [Add Section 2.8 to the NRPM.]
> >
> > 2.8 Community Network
> >
> > A community network is a generic reference to any network that is
> > operated by a group of people living in a particular local area
> > organized for the purposes of delivery or provision of network
> > services
> > to the residents of an incorporated or unincorporated regional
> > municipality, city, town, village, rural municipality, township,
> > county,
> > district or other municipality or other such geographic space,
> however
> > designated.
> >
> > [Modify 6.5.8.1b as follows.]
> >
> > b. qualify for an IPv4 assignment or allocation from ARIN under the
> > IPv4
> > policy currently in effect or be a Community Network as defined in
> > Section 2.8, with allocation criteria defined in section 6.5.9.
> >
> > [Add Section 6.5.9 to the NRPM.]
> >
> > 6.5.9 Community Network Allocations
> >
> > 6.5.9.1. Initial assignment size
> >
> > Organizations defined as Community Networks under section 2.8 are
> > eligible to receive a direct assignment. The minimum size of the
> > assignment is /48. Organizations requesting a larger assignment must
> > provide documentation of the characteristics of the Community
> > Network's
> > size and architecture that require the use of additional subnets. An
> > HD-Ratio of .94 with respect to subnet utilization within the network
> > must be met for all assignments larger than a /48.
> >
> > These assignments shall be made from a distinctly identified prefix
> > and
> > shall be made with a reservation for growth of at least a /44. This
> > reservation may be assigned to other organizations later, at ARIN's
> > discretion.
> >
> > 6.5.9.2. Subsequent assignment size
> >
> > Additional assignments may be made when the need for additional
> > subnets
> > is justified. Justification will be determined based on a detailed
> > plan
> > of the network's architecture and the .94 HD-Ratio metric. When
> > possible, assignments will be made from an adjacent address block.
> >
> > 6.5.9.3. Number of customers
> >
> > Community Networks seeking an allocation must demonstrate that they
> > provide for a user base of at least 100 through connectivity to homes
> > and businesses, public facilities, public access points, or mobile
> > users. Community Networks with user bases of under 200 must also
> > submit
> > a plan for doubling their service base over the next year.
> >
> > Rationale:
> >
> > There are currently a number of projects globally that aim to develop
> > community network infrastructure and related technologies. These are
> > usually coordinated by volunteer-run, grassroots organizations which
> > lack many of the resources of traditional internet service providers
> > and
> > other network operators. They have diverse goals, including public
> > policy, software development, and implementation of community
> services
> > and resources. Many of them provide services free of charge, and thus
> > lack any paying user base. However, in order to create and maintain
> > community networks that are often composed of hundreds if not
> > thousands
> > of inexpensive, commodity hosts and devices, a significant amount of
> > address space will be required. Current-generation workarounds to
> this
> > problem, such as NAT, not only make it difficult to develop
> > next-generation decentralized network technology by segmenting the
> > community's architecture from the Internet as a whole, but will
> > cease to
> > be as viable a stopgap as the Internet moves towards IPv6
> integration.
> >
> > Even now, common community networking software solutions such as
> > CUWiNware (http://www.cuwin.net) and Freifunk
> (http://www.freifunk.at)
> > have nascent IPv6 addressing support, but participating organizations
> > lack the address space for widespread testing or adoption. As such,
> it
> > is necessary to implement an procedure as soon as possible for these
> > segregated networks to acquire address space. These organizations do
> > not
> > meet the criteria traditionally defined for LIR's, and thus cannot
> > acquire address allocations through existing templates. By
> > establishing
> > a procedure by which these organizations can seek to acquire the
> > resources they require for further development, ARIN can reach out to
> > this active community and establish a small but definite space for
> > them
> > in the future of Internet.
> >
> > Timetable for implementation: Immediate.
> >
> > Josh King
> > --
> > josh at acornactivemedia.com
> > --
> > Senior Network Engineer, Acorn Active Media
> > (http://www.acornactivemedia.com)
> > System Administrator, Chambana.net (http://www.chambana.net)
> > --
> > "I am an Anarchist not because I believe Anarchism is the final goal,
> > but because there is no such thing as a final goal." -Rudolf Rocker
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the
> > ARIN Public Policy
> > Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> > Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net
> > if you experience any issues.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN
> Public Policy
> Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if
> you experience any issues.