[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3
Jean-Marc Pigeon
jmp at safe.ca
Mon Apr 27 18:43:34 EDT 2009
On Mon, 2009-04-27 at 18:05 -0400, Christopher Cope wrote:
> Scott,
>
> The National Capital FreeNet monitors its operational costs very
[...]
> savings can be re-directed towards providing connectivity on a
> cost-free basis to disadvantaged members who otherwise would not enjoy
> Internet access. Should NCF be required to pay the current fee
> schedule charges of $2,250/yr for an IPv6 /32 and/or IPv4 /20 the
> additional cost would equate to our not providing access for about 90
> or 100 people per block without finding a new source of funding.
You are right....
But you can go even further
There is 2^56 /32 avail within IPV6, lets say
there is need for 2^28 worldwide, revenue for ARIN would be
around 500 Billion PER year, please tell me I am wrong
in my estimation (I must be wrong somewhere).
Such price could be explainable for IPV4 (to
force people to move to IPV6).
My understanding, the effective current ARIN policy
is to avoid a future to IPV6.
It is not a question of small or big organization, if
IPV4 is too short in IP number and the future need
far more IP then lets say current IPV6 asked prices
are just plain "amazing".
>
> It seems to me that the same level of assistance which would be
> provided to Community networks below the threshold of $250K ought to
> be extended to organizations such as FreeNet, who, incidentally, tries
> very hard not to be seen as an “ISP” but rather an organization
> providing enabling technology to people who otherwise would be
> marginalized. We accomplish through support of those of our members
> with sufficient means to donate beyond the cost of their own
> connectivity, and in so-doing help provide services to those who are
> unable to pay.
>
> Chris Cope
> President, National Capital FreeNet
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
>
> Date: Saturday, April 25, 2009 11:48 am
>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3
>
> > Sorry, my question was a bit unclear.
> >
> > Current policy allows an ISP to acquire IPv6 address space if they
> > are
> > "an existing, known ISP in the ARIN region or have a plan for
> > making at
> > least 200 end-site assignments to other organizations within 5
> > years."
> > (https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six5) The current fee
> > schedule
> > charges $2,250/yr for small organizations (those with an IPv6 /32
> > and/or
> > IPv4 /20, for example).
> >
> > I presume an organization like NCF would qualify for IPv6 under
> > existing
> > policy, as an ISP that happens to be non-profit. Do you believe
> > that
> > ARIN fees of $2,250/yr would be a hardship for an organization of
> > NCF's
> > size?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Scott
> >
> > Christopher Cope wrote:
> > >
> > > *Hi Scott,*
> > >
> > > *Yes. Unless the definition isamended to remove the budget cap,
> > most
> > > succesful community networks in Canada and the US will be
> > excluded by
> > > definition. Budget size does not in any way reflect "community."
> > It
> > > does however restrict technology (you won't have any fibre-based
> > > comnets) and size, NCF and others like it will be excluded. A
> > > definition of community net should reflect the activities and
> > purpose
> > > of the organization; not the scope of the operation or
> > technology used.*
> > >
> > > *Thanks for yout interest.*
> > >
> > > *Chris*
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *----- Original Message -----*
> > >
> > > *From*: Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> *Date*: Friday,
> > April
> > > 24, 2009 12:20 pm *Subject*: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3
> > > 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
> > matu re
> > > >
> > > > > 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 reve nues 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
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > &g t; 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.
> > > >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
--
A bientôt
==========================================================================
Jean-Marc Pigeon Internet: jmp at safe.ca
SAFE Inc. Phone: (514) 493-4280
Fax: (514) 493-1946
Clement, 'a kiss solution' to get rid of SPAM (at last)
Clement' Home base <"http://www.clement.safe.ca">
==========================================================================
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list