[ppml] Revision to 2008-3

[Scott Leibrand]

Matthew Petach wrote:

> I'd likewise like to indicate my non-support for the current proposal
> as I think the definition of a "community network" is too easily
> abused.  Any individual can claim to represent a "community network"
> simply by having a WiFi access point in their house that their neighbor
> sometimes hops on.

Did you notice the proposal's section 6.5.9.3. Number of customers, 
which requires a user base of at least 100, with plans to grow to 200? 
Does that address your "more than one person" concern?

> if we can clarify that a community network must meet all of the
> following requirements to quality:
> a) be a recognized not-for-profit entity
> b) consist of multiple people organized together to provide no-fee,
>     free network access within a well-defined, network-contiguous
>     region (such that there will be no deaggregation of the
>     announcement across multiple non-connected egress points)
> c) have a documented plan to provide the aforementioned free service
>     to at least N sites (can't really say "customers" since we're
>     forcing them to be not-for-profit).  My temptation is to set 'N'
>     below the LIR threshold--we're not talking about organizations
>     that will rival the local ISP for the most part, so I'd suggest 50
>     as a reasonable starting number.

Do you really want ARIN micro-managing not-for-profit entities' business 
models by preventing them from charging for service, even on a cost 
recovery basis?

> For me, the not-for-profit portion is crucial--otherwise, they're
> either an ISP/LIR, or an enterprise/end user network, and
> should apply under those rules.  Also, the 'more than one
> person, more than one "customer"' portion is pretty key;
> setting up your wireless access point so that your neighbor
> can use it shouldn't allow you to qualify as a "community
> network"; in my book, you're still an end user.
> 
> If we can address those concerns, I think I'd be able to
> consider supporting it; but without some clear rules on
> what a "community network" is, I think this policy
> would be too wide open for abuse.


I'm agnostic as to whether we should require not-for-profit status.  It 
seems to me that any for-profit ISP with any ambition wouldn't want a 
non-reassignable /48 if they could just as easily qualify for an LIR 
/32, so I think the process will allow everyone to self-select the 
appropriate category.  And as long as a community network needs plans 
for 200 customers just like an LIR does, it doesn't seem to change the 
threshold for potential abuse.

-Scott