[ppml] Revision to 2008-3

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Fri Apr 4 04:22:45 EDT 2008

On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:41 AM, 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.
The problem with that approach is that most, if not virtually all of  
organizations have financial means which fall far short of the ability  
pay ARIN subscriber-member fees.

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.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list