[ppml] Revision to 2008-3

[Jay Hennigan]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:41 AM, Jay Hennigan wrote:

>> 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.
>>
> The problem with that approach is that most, if not virtually all of these
> organizations have financial means which fall far short of the ability to
> pay ARIN subscriber-member fees.

I would think that the ARIN fees would be relatively small in comparison 
with the hardware and ongoing transit, power, and operational costs 
involved in maintaining such a network, but perhaps I'm out of touch 
with the resourcefulness of these groups.  (Yes, I'm a long-time ham 
operator and indeed have cobbled together my share of begged, borrowed 
and dumpster-dived gear over the years, but we're talking about a 
community of 100-plus people, right?)

> I agree that we should develop policy that allows them to operate
> similar to LIRs, but, I also think that it is reasonable and worth while
> to encourage the BOT to develop a fee structure that allows them
> to make good use of that policy.

OK, so the proposal is for a financial as opposed to a technical 
differentiation between community networks and conventional LIR/ISPs, 
correct?

In that case, would it not make more sense to provide for a hardship or 
not-for-profit fee structure (to be reviewed periodically) for such 
organizations, and leave the technical definitions alone?

-- 
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service  -  http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV