[ppml] Revision to 2008-3

Josh King josh at acornactivemedia.com
Thu Apr 3 14:37:41 EDT 2008



Jay Hennigan wrote:
> michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> [somebody else wrote]
>>> In my opinion, the policy needs to at least be specific 
>>> enough that it does not provide openings to be exploited by 
>>> PACs, random religious, political, or other groups organized 
>>> in the interest of furthering an agenda in favor of some 
>>> subgroup of society.
>> This goes against the spirit of the ARIN charter, if not the letter.
>> ARIN has no justification to create policies which are prejudicial 
>> against some class of organization. IP address policy must remain 
>> firmly rooted in the technical requirements of IP addressing. 
>>
>> If political lobby groups, religious organizations, or any other group
>> organized to further the agenda of some subgroup of society (say
>> Verizon)
>> wants to get IP addresses from ARIN, they should get them on the same
>> terms as any other group. 
> 
> It seems to me that the purpose of the proposed change was to 
> accommodate organizations similar to the old-school "freenets" which 
> aren't commercial ISPs or political/religious/agenda-driven 
> organizations.  Something along the lines of a rural wireless community, 
> a homeowners' association, etc.
> 
> I'm thinking about the old days where a group of people in an 
> off-the-beaten-path dialing area would band together and get a modem 
> bank and a fractional T-1.  The purpose of the organization was to 
> provide Internet access to a diverse group in a community as opposed to 
> an existing group with an agenda adding Internet access as an adjunct to 
> the agenda.
> 
> 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.
> 
I would say that this is a very accurate characterization of what many
(most?) of these organizations are like, with some of them (notably the
Champaign-Urbana Wireless Network, Seattle Wireless, and Il Sans Fil)
having some open-source software development too, purely for the
betterment of the network. It's true that the current policies do not
fit them, as they are more like an LIR than like an end-user but neither
do they have "customers." 2008-3 is just one way to try and get them
included in the allocation policy, there are probably other methods
(like modifying the LIR policy as you suggested). Tough to say which is
the best way.

-- 
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


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080403/53686afc/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list