[arin-ppml] 2008-3 Support

[Milton L Mueller]

The problem that we are beating around the bush here is a fairly common one (but no less difficult) in resource allocation.

Joshua is pleading a set of special circumstances that, he believes, warrant a special exception to normal ARIN v6 allocation policies. This kind of a claim can either be based on a particular status of the organization (e.g., nonprofit, community organization, etc.) or on the special and meritorious use to which the allocation would be put (e.g., the ability of local organizations to experiment, innovate, etc.)

This is what we call “merit” allocation. That is, allocations are based not on some (allegedly) objective standard of “need” nor on the ability to pay the regular fees, but on the perceived social merit of the claim. Others call it a beauty contest - but in this case there is not really a “contest” in that his group is not asking for one of a fixed number of slots, as happens, e.g., with broadcast licensing. So maybe we should call it a “beauty pageant.”

I strongly believe that ARIN’s v6 allocation policies should be flexible and open enough to allow organizations like Joshua’s to qualify for a v6 application – simply because they want one, not because they “need” one according to some v4-world definition of “need.” I would be very concerned, however, about the prospect of complicating v6 allocation policies with a welter of special policies around specific merit claims. This would involve creating complex and always game-able classifications of organizations and uses. If we do this, I suspect, we will discover long term that for every sincere and worthy applicant like Joshua, there will be one or two entities who exploit that process in various ways to gain an unfair advantage over the other slogs who follow the normal rules. And the ability to discriminate between the gamers and the sincere-worthies will impose significant overhead on the RIRs.

Here’s how I conceive of the choice. We can 1) try to forge a general policy governing merit claims, by creating an elaborate set of organizational status classifications and merit assignment criteria; or 2) establish a uniform but liberal set of rules governing access, charge appropriate fees to deter inefficient or wasteful use, and let merit claimants seek funding support from foundations, the government, their members, industry, etc. when they are unable to afford those fees. That is, the assessment of merit claims should be delegated to funders (who are more in the business of evaluating the merit of applicants) and not hardwired into (or carved out of) allocation policy.

A simpler and more concrete way of saying this is that it makes a lot more sense, in the larger scheme of things, for Joshua to ask people for donations of $165/mo. to pay an ISP or to support them through the regular ARIN process than it does to structurally revise allocations policy in order to cater to merit claimants.

I do think, however, that this experience ought to prompt ARIN to consider more carefully what it means by "need" for addresses in the v6 environment.

--MM

________________________________
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Joshua King [josh at acornactivemedia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 6:27 PM
To: ppml at arin.net
Subject: [arin-ppml] 2008-3 Support

Sorry to be late weighing in on the proposal in this whole process.

I was partly responsible for the initial version of this proposal, and it grew out of a long, iterative process. Initially, my organization, Acorn Active Media Foundation, attempted to get an IPv6 address allocation from ARIN that we could experiment with and find uses for across several disparate systems that we managed across a collection of local, technology-oriented non-profits that we co-managed the computer infrastructure for; these organizations would probably be considered community networks. They include Chambana.net, a community co-location and hosting co-operative that runs a collection of servers that host mailinglists, websites, email, and other services for dozens of community organizations; the Champaign-Urbana Community Wireless Network (CUWiN), which develops open-source wireless mesh software and deploys networks both within Champaign-Urbana, Illinois where it's located and within other communities around the country; and the Urbana-Champaign Independent Media Center (UCIMC), a large community media, arts, and journalism center which runs public computer labs as well and electronic media creation training along with its other projects. We wanted to get an IPv6 allocation to see what we could do with it, for a number of reasons. We were paying $165/month for a 1Mb upstream connection and 4 "sticky" public IPv4 addresses with donations, and couldn't afford anything better (nothing was available that was less expensive, all of our equipment donated, all of our work volunteer, and no budget). We used 4 semi-static addresses to provide public services upstream from 10 servers and 80+ wireless nodes, and hoped that getting IPv6 addresses could allow us to better manage our systems for those that supported IPv6. We wanted to experiment with how global addressing space might allow us to experiment with CUWiN's mobile wireless systems, or tie together multiple networks in different locations: CUWiN manages networks in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois; Homer, Illinois; and Mesa Verda, California, and is allied with Seattle Wireless, NYC Wireless, Wireless Philadelphia, and Open Air Boston; UCIMC is the global hub of over 200 independent journalism centers worldwide. And since IPv6 is presumably the future of the Internet, we wanted to start supporting it as soon as possible (our current upstream provider didn't support IPv6).

But when we tried to apply for space, ARIN didn't seem sure what to do with us. So it was recommmended that we put in a policy proposal, which would provide a niche that would encourage community networks like the ones that we represented to apply for space, by letting them know it was possible. I honestly think that this proposal would be beneficial, to the organizations like those above and others like them. Even if it doesn't eventually result in a policy that reduces fees, I think it will let community networks know that there's a place for them in the greater Internet community.

A common criticism of community networks is that they are difficult to define; I think that that is unfortunately true. It's much like the phrase "community organization," commonly used in organizing and non-profit policy, that people don't really know what it means. I hesitate to refer to Wikipedia, but I feel like they give a pretty good if broad definition of community network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_network/. It is however a subjective definition dependent upon purpose and motivation within the group, rather than something that can be nailed down under budget, staff size, or fiscal status. Thus I agree with the need for discretion within the AC on qualifying organizations.

However, here's a list of some community networks that I know of (sorry there are a lot from Illinois, and a large wireless bias; those are just regions and fields I'm involved with). Maybe they can provide an example:
Acorn Active Media Foundation
UCIMC
CUWiN
Chambana.net
Tribal Digital Village, provides network services and outreach on California reservations
Prairienet, a community access project and dial-up ISP sponsored by the University of Illinois
Seattle Wireless, a community wireless network
Personal Telco Project, a community wireless network based in Portland
Portland Community Media, a community technology center (CTC)
Denver Open Media, a CTC and public access station in Denver that deploys open-source publishing platforms in other public access stations
Mountain Area Information Network, a CTC, public radio and television station, and ISP in Asheville, NC
Ile Sans Fil, a community wireless network and volunteer open-source software developer in Montreal
Austin Wireless, a community wireless network
Wireless Philadelphia, first a public metro wifi network, then defunct commercial network, now getting restarted as community-oriented again
Public Internet Project, digital divide outreach non-profit and community wireless network
NetEquality, outreach and activism, vendor of discount wireless equipment

--
Josh King
--
Treasurer, Acorn Active Media Foundation
Systems Engineer, Chambana.net and CUWiN
Technical Coordinator, UCIMC
Adjunct Technologist, Open Technology Initiative
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090917/99f86556/attachment.htm>