[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment - Last Call

[Randy Bush]

> If the beneficiaries of this policy are real rather than abstract it
> should be much easier to tailor the policy to meet their needs. If they
> don't exist yet, what purpose does the policy serve?

the problem with defining the beneficiary is that there is a gap-less
continuum from the red cross to the aarl to the folk who set up ad hoc
wireless in new orleans during the early part of the hurricane disaster
there.

i suspect many here are trying to draw a circle around seattle wireless
and its ilk.  the big problem is that it is a multi-dimensional space.
there is the form of organization (incorporated, underground, anarchic,
cooperative, ...), the intent of use (provider bypass, research, civil,
political, emergency, poor/rural access, ...), financial structure
(cooperative, no exchange of funds, grant/gift funded, non-profit, ...),
etc.  the list of dimensions goes on.

so i am not optimistic about an effort to bound a definition of the
beneficiaries.  and i suspect staff would not be entirely happy to have
something this loosey goosey dumped on them for decisions (staff, please
disabuse me if i underestimate your omniscience:-).  and, with the
overload failure of the 198.32.0.0/16 exchange point lesson, i.e. the of
carving a chunk and giving it to some well-meaning individual or
organization to manage, the problem does fall on arin.

therefore, i fear that, if this proposal must have a definition of the
beneficiary set, it may be a great opportunity for mailing list banter,
this message being an example, but it is unlikely go anywhere useful.

randy