[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3

[Scott Leibrand]

Chris,

Thanks for the feedback. Do you see NCF having any trouble getting an  
IPv6 /32 under the existing policy and fee schedule? I have a lot of  
respect for networks like that, but I'd need more data to be convinced  
that the policy need extends to larger networks.

Thanks,
Scott

On Apr 24, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Christopher Cope <ccope at ncf.ca> wrote:

> I wish to comment on section 2.8, the definition of a Community  
> Network.  In my opinion, the stated definition is woefully  
> inadequate to describe  many of the community networks that exist in  
> Canada and elsewhere.  Limiting the definition to organizations with  
> annual budgets less than  $250,000 may encompass community networks  
> in developing nations, but is far too limiting to include mature  
> organizations in North America such  as the National Capital  
> FreeNet. NCF was incorporated as a  not-for-profit community network  
> in 1992 and our budget for 2009 exceeds  $1 Million. Even the  
> portion of our revenue that represents donations  exclusively  
> related to dial-up service is approaching this arbitrary  $250,000  
> threshold. The fact is that we have more than 10,000 members  now  
> and continue to grow. In order to provide this much needed service   
> in our community, we also engage in other activities beyond being a   
> sim ple dial-up provider in order to ensure that we can continue to  
> offer connectivity to those who are unable to pay.
>
> Nor would this definition work for many of the modern community  
> owned fibre networks, where costs and revenues are typically higher,  
> but nonetheless, where services and connectivity is offered to  
> community agencies on a not-for profit basis, and by where by any  
> other definition would indeed be community networks.
>
> Limiting the definition of a Community Network by imposing a limit  
> on budget size onerously limits the playing field to those  
> organizations that have not grown up yet and that employ the  
> technologies of yesterday and in some cases tomorrow, but most  
> definitely not tomorrow. The whole reason for IPv6 is to provide for  
> growth. Why allow growth in addresses while disregarding growth in  
> costs and revenue.
>
> Chris Cope
> President, National Capital FreeNet
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.