[ppml] Revision to 2008-3

Scott Leibrand sleibrand at internap.com
Tue Apr 1 21:21:06 EDT 2008

Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On 2 Apr 2008 Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> I absolutely think that it is vital to be more specific for this  
>>> policy.

I'm still not sure I understand why it's so important to be exclusionary 
in policy on this issue.  It seems to me that, if we're creating a more 
restricted set of services (an assignment instead of allocation), but 
requiring a plan for the same number of customers (200) as under 
existing policy, that we should leave the rest of the qualifications 
open, allowing each type of organization free to choose which set of 
services makes more sense for them.

> Personally, I am not yet convinced that community networks so much
> need a policy change as they need an appropriate fee structure that
> can recognize their "limited income" status while still treating them
> appropriately as an LIR in the ARIN structure.

I agree that it would be good to provide a reduced fee structure for 
community networks, and that such a structure should be limited to 
not-for-profit organizations providing nondiscriminatory network 
services to their community.  However, I think that for a community 
network to receive reduced fees, it should have to choose a reduced set 
of services (an assignment), so that ARIN isn't subsidizing such 
organizations by providing full LIR services at below cost.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list