[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
Jason Schiller
jschiller at google.com
Wed Jun 14 11:30:19 EDT 2017
Thinking on this a bit, I see three things:
1. What is the problem?
2. Value in designating community networks
3. Fees?
TL;DR - do we need a definition? If so, we need a useful one first.
---------------------------------
1. What is the problem?
Is there a group of organizations who are unable to get IPv6?
If so why?
Answering that question will result in a clear problem statement.
The next question is is there a generic solution,
OR does the solution need to be scoped to only community nets.
If the problem cannot be solved generically, then we will need a
useful definition of community networks
---------------------------------
2. Value in designating community networks
Looking at the problem from the reverse direction suggests that
having a definition of community networks does two things:
A. it establishes that the numbers community values community networks
and that the community is supportive treating them differently if
needed
B. It has a definition that is ready to be applied if at some future
time
community networks require special treatment.
If we want to continue to have a definition, then we will need a
useful definition of community networks
---------------------------------
3. Fees?
Is this all about fees?
Fees are not established in policy, but the community network stuff
found its way into the NRPM in order to encourage and support the
ARIN Board being able to discount fees to community networks.
I don't know how that discussion went, but the Board decided to not
discount community networks, but instead provide a more generic
solution of lowering billing for the very small.
-----------------------------
Thoughts:
The fee problem was solved generically and is generally considered an
acceptable solution to most community networks.
We do not have a useful definition of community networks.
If we have a class of organizations that can't get IPv6, and
we can't solve this generically, we will need a useful definition
of community networks. (first step is identifying the problem)
If we want to keep the community networks definition in the NRPM,
(because:
- it demonstrates community networks are valuable
- shows the numbers community is willing to treat them differently
- is available for application to future solutions that cannot be solved
generically)
then we need a useful definition of community networks.
Having a definition of community networks with no references to it
in the NRPM seems weird and irrelevant.
Removing the definition from the NRPM, doesn't mean we:
- are throwing away the definition
- don't value community networks
- won't consider how future policy changes might impact
community networks
Removing the definition from the NRPM, doesn't mean we
can not continue to find a useful definition for community
networks, that has the support of the numbers community,
and can easily be added when we find a future policy change
that is problematic for community networks and cannot be
solved generically.
[This can be recorder in PPML, and recognized by the
ARIN AC as having community support, but be tabled
until there is a policy proposal that needs such a carve out.]
Can we avoid the problem of defining a community network
by defining some other class that contains the community
networks that would have been negatively impacted.
(This is what we did for billing by creating a 3X-Small category)
Could a carve out for "small transit provider" as defined with
having 200 or less customers be used instead of a "community
networks" definition.
(the definition could mention this class is expected to contain all
community networks that are not large enough to avoid impact,
or similar notes could be included in the policy rational)
___Jason
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Jose R. de la Cruz III <jrdelacruz at acm.org
> wrote:
> Jason:
>
> If changing, updating, or "fixing" the definition will make an impact on
> community networks, then it should be done. I still do not see much of an
> impact even if the change is performed. Most have commented that money is
> the main reason for their "troubles", so the change will not affect their
> fees.
>
> José
>
> José R. de la Cruz
> jrdelacruz at acm.org
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Marita,
>>
>> I take to message to mean having ARIN policy for community networks
>> is helpful, and the policy is not used by community networks, because
>> the 100% volunteer requirement disqualifies many who would benefit
>> which is why the policy has gone unused.
>>
>> The next step is coming up with a definition that will support community
>> networks, but not allow other organizations to abuse the definition as a
>> loophole.
>>
>> The conversation needs to shift to how do we define "community networks"
>> in a useful way.
>>
>> Propose a definition for community networks.
>>
>> Can you borrow from other definitions of community networks
>> that you come across in your sphere, such as say the tax codes,
>> or access to some other privilege that community networks may
>> be granted?
>>
>> I suspect the ARIN community would be happy dropping the volunteer
>> requirement if there was some other way to separate out things
>> that are community networks.
>>
>> __Jason
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Marita Moll <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello all. As part of NARALO, I attended the ARIN mtg in New Orleans and
>>> became aware of the policy re: community networks. I don't have all the
>>> details others can contribute. But I have been involved on the policy side
>>> with community networks in Canada for 20 years, so can provide a small
>>> slice of context from here.
>>>
>>> I totally agree that community networks see a lot of value in being
>>> recognized in ARIN policy. The few are doing well, others struggle to
>>> exist. But they have been and in some areas are still an important part of
>>> the Internet access landscape. It is difficult, as it is, to even
>>> locate these scattered entities. Deleting language the recognizes their
>>> existence would be a shame.
>>>
>>> The 100% volunteer driven requirement is not realistic. I don't know
>>> what it should be. Even 70% volunteer driven might not bring in much more
>>> activity in the short term but it would be a recognition that the
>>> non-profit/cooperative model is a viable option for communities trying to
>>> manage their own access issues.
>>>
>>> Marita Moll
>>>
>>> Telecommunities Canada (loose coalition of community networks in Canada)
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> <(571)%20266-0006>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170614/43af1f86/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list