[arin-ppml] Expanding Scope? :Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the definition of Community Network
Jason Schiller
jschiller at google.com
Thu Aug 31 14:17:05 EDT 2017
David,
please ask your question again.
I don't see any responses, and I for one
did not understand the question...
I read the problem statement as follows:
1. community networks policy has not been used
2. we tried to remove it on the grounds that it is not used
therefore not needed
3. Removal failed because it is needed.
4. claims were made that it is unused because
the defintion is too narrow to be useful
5. implied problem we should have a useful
community networks policy that gets used.
I think the issue here is in the implied statement 5,
- Get used for what?
- What special treatment should community networks get?
- What special treatment do community networks require?
One was reduced billing, but that seems to have been
addressed by creating reduced billing for a very small
category which happens to sweep in most community
networks. (The ones not swept in have no problem
playing by the regular rules)
Or are we simply trying to have a useful defintion of
community networks not disappear from the NRPM
because the Numbers Community values community
networks and while there is no specific special treatment
necessary for community networks, there might be a
requirement in the future and having a useful definition
will enable that when it is needed, and reminds us when
making new policy to not forget about community networks?
reading the thread, my sense is:
1. Most community networks should be able to get resources
as easily as an end-user
(does not need to include very large ones who should operate
like ISPs)
2. Small-ish community networks should have a financial
burden that is no bigger than a small-ish end-user
3. Community networks provide addresses for use
on their downstream customer's equipment, so must be
an "ISP" under ARIN terms
4. Because of #3, community networks with no requirement
for re-allocations, cannot take advantage
of end-user $100/resource annual billing
5. Community networks with a requirement for
re-allocations must pay a lot more than small-ish
end-users.
You include Kevin's email about concerns that
an overly broad definition of community network
could enable and org which today must be an ISP
to use this definition to get reclassified as an end-user
and avoid SWIP requirements.
I agree with those concerns.
I see no reason why the current proposal with the
current problem statement couldn't also remove
or amend 6.5.9
__Jason
On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:42 AM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> Ok, then I need to hear from others in the community on the subject
> expanding the scope of the problem statement for this Draft Policy beyond
> the just the Definition of Community Networks at this point;
>
> Should we revise the problem statement beyond it's current scope?
>
> If yes, then what should the revised problem statement include?
>
> Thanks
>
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:19 PM, Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> David,
>>
>>
>>
>> I see that the revised text addresses some of the definition issues.
>> Regarding your question I believe that the definition and section 6.5.9 are
>> intrinsically tied together.
>>
>>
>>
>> Currently the only active part of Community Networks is the state that it
>> will be considered an end-user regarding “all ARIN purposes”. I have an
>> issue if this is used by Organizations to act as a way of opting-out of
>> SWIP requirements. With a substantially expanded definition the number of
>> Organizations that could use the policy is significant.
>>
>>
>>
>> Another interesting problem comes from the new Registration Services Plan
>> (https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html)
>>
>>
>>
>> “Organizations that choose to convert to the Registration Services Plan
>> will be evaluated as an ISP from a policy perspective when requesting
>> future Internet number resources from ARIN. The applicable annual
>> registration services plan will be invoiced annually based on the
>> organization resources in the ARIN registry.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Kevin Blumberg
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* David Farmer [mailto:farmer at umn.edu]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 24, 2017 3:05 PM
>> *To:* Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca>
>> *Cc:* arin-ppml at arin.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the
>> definition of Community Network
>>
>>
>>
>> Kevin,
>>
>>
>>
>> There was a little confusion, mostly on my part it seems. Cutting to the
>> chase; An older version of the text got sent out with the announcement of
>> this policy. An updated version of text got sent out earlier today, it
>> addresses some but for sure not all of your points.
>>
>>
>>
>> As for several of the broader points you bring up, I'd like to work on
>> updating the definition for Community Networks first, mostly because that
>> is the scope of the problem statement focuses on. Once we develop some
>> consensus around a new definition for Community Networks, then I think we
>> could build on that and look at some of the broader issues you bring up.
>> Would that plan work for you?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I do not support the policy as written but do support the overall intent.
>>
>> 1) The definition of a community network has gone from overly specific to
>> overly broad. An example in Canada there are over 160,000 non-profit and
>> not-for-profit organizations.
>> 2) A volunteer group, that is not an organization, wouldn't be able to
>> get space from ARIN as it requires a business registration (ARIN Staff
>> please confirm).
>> 3) Why is there a limit to only post-secondary institutions? Many rural
>> locations have K-12 that would not qualify.
>> 4) In Canada, a charity is a non-profit organization, more generic terms
>> should be used that covers the entire ARIN serving region.
>> 5) The current Community Networks policy conflicts with the intent of
>> 2017-5 Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements. By placing all space into
>> End User assignment, Community Networks operating as a ISP collective for
>> residential subscribers would be unable to reassign static assignments.
>>
>> The current Community Networks policy requires an applicant to qualify
>> under standard end-user requirements (Section 6.5.9.2). If there is no
>> difference to the qualification criteria, why would an organization go out
>> of the way to qualify as a Community Network?
>>
>> I wrote a policy in 2016 that tried to address some of these issues, it
>> was abandoned at the time ( https://www.arin.net/policy/pr
>> oposals/2016_7.html )
>>
>> Kevin Blumberg
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of ARIN
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 12:40 PM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the definition of
>> Community Network
>>
>> On 17 August 2017 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced
>> "ARIN-prop-243: Amend the Definition of Community Network" to Draft
>> Policy status.
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8 is below and can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_8.html
>>
>> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
>> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft
>> policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated
>> in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>>
>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>> * Technically Sound
>> * Supported by the Community
>>
>> The PDP can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>>
>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Sean Hopkins
>> Policy Analyst
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>
>>
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the Definition of Community Network
>>
>> Problem Statement:
>>
>> The Community Networks section of the NRPM has not been used since
>> implementation in January 2010. Proposal ARIN-2016-7, to increase the
>> number of use cases, was abandoned by the Advisory Council due to lack of
>> feedback. Proposal ARIN 2017-2, to remove all mention of community networks
>> from NRPM was met with opposition by the community. Many responded that the
>> definition of “community network” was too narrow, which could be the reason
>> for lack of uptake.
>>
>> Policy statement:
>>
>> CURRENT NRPM TEXT:
>>
>> “2.11. Community Network
>>
>> A community network is any network organized and operated by a volunteer
>> group operating as or under the fiscal support of a nonprofit organization
>> or university for the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity to
>> the residents of their local service area. To be treated as a community
>> network under ARIN policy, the applicant must certify to ARIN that the
>> community network staff is 100% volunteers.”
>>
>> NEW NRPM TEXT:
>>
>> “2.11 Community Network
>>
>> A community network is a network organized and operated by a volunteer
>> group, not-for-profit, non-profit, charitable organization, or
>> post-secondary institution for the purpose of providing free or low-cost
>> connectivity to residents in their service area. Critical functions may be
>> handled by paid staff, but volunteers play a large role in offering
>> services available through community networks.”
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ===============================================
>> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
>> Networking & Telecommunication Services
>> Office of Information Technology
>> University of Minnesota
>> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
>> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
>> ===============================================
>>
>
>
>
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
> ===============================================
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
--
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170831/11e623a2/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list