[arin-ppml] ARIN-2017-2
Rudolph Daniel
rudi.daniel at gmail.com
Fri Jun 16 19:25:29 EDT 2017
If it aint broken why try to fix it...is one scenario, the other is, we
could modify the requirements to make it usable down line. IPv6 and IOT
promises new network topologies, that is also a considerarion.
The basic principle of community networks is I think one of the pillars of
the internet ....for the public good..
So modify it, change it, move the goal posts if you will, but I dont
believe that it is the best interest of the internet community to delete
policy or provision for community networks.
RD
On Jun 16, 2017 11:04 AM, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:
Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
arin-ppml at arin.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
arin-ppml-request at arin.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: ARIN_2017-2 (Cj Aronson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:03:57 -0600
From: Cj Aronson <cja at daydream.com>
To: Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
Cc: Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>, "arin-ppml at arin.net"
<arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN_2017-2
Message-ID:
<CAC6JZKQY1tdkK7LyLbobhQrbDL4v2qcefUB5v0Q1+3w5QHxTbA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
It came up because in the entire history of the Community Networks policy
it has never been used once. So either it's not needed or it needs to be
changed so that it serves some part of the community.
-----Cathy
{?,?}
(( ))
? ?
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Agreed. I can't think of a good reason why this came up to be honest.
> "Simplification" == "time sink" != value.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -M<
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:43 Rudolph Daniel <rudi.daniel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> For clarity, I do not support the proposal as written and I would never
>> be in support of removing community networks from the policy manual.
>> RD
>>
>> On Friday, June 16, 2017, <arin-ppml-request at arin.net> wrote:
>> > Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to
>> > arin-ppml at arin.net
>> >
>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> > arin-ppml-request at arin.net
>> >
>> > You can reach the person managing the list at
>> > arin-ppml-owner at arin.net
>> >
>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."
>> >
>> >
>> > Today's Topics:
>> >
>> > 1. When the abuse continues (Marilson)
>> > 2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
>> > (hostmaster at uneedus.com)
>> > 3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
>> > (Steven Ryerse)
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Message: 1
>> > Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:09:36 -0300
>> > From: "Marilson" <marilson.mapa at gmail.com>
>> > To: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>> > Subject: [arin-ppml] When the abuse continues
>> > Message-ID: <2F43E6043BA4477C96612145B9A5F4DA at xPC>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>> >
>> > On June 12, 2017 1:15 PM Albert wrote:
>> >> If you were the administrator and you did what you said after a
>> report, I
>> > would see the abuse stopped (in this case simply beacuse you cut that
>> user
>> > off), I would consider that a success, not a failure. When I send a
>> > report, stopping the abuse is more important than an email response.
>> >
>> >> ...If a reasonable time goes by and I still have not seen the
>> connection
>> > attempts stop, I see this as ignoring abuse reports, and this is what I
>> > speak of.
>> >
>> > I need a little help. What should we do, whom should we complain about,
>> when abuse continues? Please consider the fact that although there are no
>> borders on the internet, nations still have borders and their own
>> jurisdiction.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Marilson
>> > -------------- next part --------------
>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> > URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
>> attachments/20170616/12b4e17d/attachment-0001.html>
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > Message: 2
>> > Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 10:09:58 -0400 (EDT)
>> > From: hostmaster at uneedus.com
>> > To: Alfredo Calderon <calderon.alfredo at gmail.com>
>> > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of
>> > Community Networks
>> > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1706160944510.13530 at localhost.localdomain>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-unknown"; Format="flowed"
>> >
>> > I caution this writer and anyone else responding to Draft Policy
>> > ARIN-2017-2 of the following:
>> >
>> > Anyone in FAVOR of ARIN-2017-2 is in favor of elimination of all
>> language
>> > that is currently in the policy manual regarding community networks.
>> >
>> > The comments below seem to be in favor of some kind of community
>> networks
>> > remaining with positive policy and regulatory treatment, a position
that
>> > seems to be the opposite of being in favor of elimination of the
>> community
>> > network policy in total.
>> >
>> > Most of the comments, including mine is actually AGAINST elimination of
>> > the community network aspects of the policy manual contained in 2017-2,
>> > with the idea to propose better definitions in the existing policy,
>> > keeping that policy, lowering the 100% volunteer requirement, and other
>> > things to make that policy so that actual community networks can use
it.
>> >
>> > Since I am unclear of what you intended, please try to better express
>> your
>> > exact position in regard to if you intended to be in favor of striking
>> the
>> > community network portions from the policy manual in total, or are you
>> in
>> > favor of some kind of amendments that will make the existing language
>> more
>> > useable by these community networks?
>> >
>> > Albert Erdmann
>> > Network Administrator
>> > Paradise On Line Inc.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alfredo Calderon wrote:
>> >
>> >> I also believe that in some regions within U.S. and its territories
>> there has been a lack of engaging and announcing the opportunities
>> available for Community Networks. During our ARIN on the Roar in San
Juan,
>> Puerto Rico we will make it a point to enphasize it.
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my "iPad Air"
>> >>
>> >> Alfredo Calder??n
>> >> Email: calderon.alfredo at gmail.com
>> >> Twylah: http://www.twylah.com/acalderon52
>> >> Twitter: acalderon52
>> >> Skype: Alfredo_1212
>> >> Business card: http://myonepage.com/ acalderon
>> >> Scoop.it: http://www.scoop.it/t/aprendiendo-a-distancia
>> >> Blog: http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com
>> >> Twitter news: http://paper.li/ acalderon52
>> >>
>> >>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Carlton Samuels <
>> carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> For the record, we have been promoting a positive policy and
>> regulatory embrace of community networks in Caribbean jurisdictions for a
>> long while. The context is service disparities occasioned by prohibitive
>> costs.
>> >>>
>> >>> Those of us in the struggle see community networks as means to
>> overcome the service disparities we see between communities just outside
>> main distribution and at the edge of public networks which become
>> underserved or simply not served because the provisioning is not
>> commercially viable for providers. The economic viability of these
networks
>> once established are top of mind and centre of all concerns.
>> >>>
>> >>> Some jurisdictions - like those in the ECTEL area - have responded
>> with enabling policy and regulatory treatment. In Jamaica we have had a
>> few projects for these networks making use of of 'tv whitespaces' and
>> forbearance in fees from spectrum management authorities. We would wish
>> ARIN to be part of the solution.
>> >>>
>> >>> While we have reservations about the criteria for qualification and
>> ARIN fee structure, I support the ARIN 2017-2 policy.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Carlton Samuels
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ==============================
>> >>> Carlton A Samuels
>> >>> Mobile: 876-818-1799 <(876)%20818-1799>
>> >>> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>> >>> =============================
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Alyssa Moore <
>> alyssa at alyssamoore.ca> wrote:
>> >>>> Hello PPML,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I???d like to spark more discussion on the Removal of Community
>> Networks proposal.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Here???s a brief history again (and thanks, Owen, for the first run
>> at it).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The policy was first implemented to
>> >>>> Encourage uptake of IPv6 in community networks
>> >>>> Reduce the threshold for qualification for community networks on
>> small blocks of IPv6
>> >>>> Provide some fee relief
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As Owen noted, the fees at the time were much higher with a minimum
>> commitment of $2500.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The fees now are much more accessible at:
>> >>>> 3X-Small *
>> >>>>
>> >>>> $250
>> >>>>
>> >>>> /24 or smaller
>> >>>>
>> >>>> /40 or smaller
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2X-Small
>> >>>>
>> >>>> $500
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Larger than /24,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> up to and including /22
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Larger than /40,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> up to and including /36
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> At the meeting in New Orleans, we heard from a few folks who are
>> involved in Community Nets. At the mic, they expressed concern that:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> They didn???t know special provisions existed for Community Nets in
>> the first place but were pleased that such provisions do exist
>> >>>> The definition in 2.11 is too restrictive. None of the
>> self-identified community networks in attendance would have qualified
under
>> the definition - notably, the 100% volunteer-run requirement.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In further discussions, I???ve gleaned that the current fees are not
>> a large concern, but that operators of community networks are pleased to
be
>> specifically recognized in the policy manual.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It is my feeling, from this feedback, that any problem here may be
>> more of an engagement and communications issue with community networks
than
>> a qualification and fee problem that can be solved in policy. This,
>> admittedly is a challenge for the network operators with limited
resources
>> one one end, and for ARIN to be doing outreach on the other.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Look forward to further discussion.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Alyssa
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:31 AM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 12:07 , Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I would offer a friendly amendment to Scott's request to open the
>> >>>>>> question up more generally... (we should not confuse if a policy
>> >>>>>> is being used, with if it is needed).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Can "Community Networks" please chime into this thread
>> >>>>>> and explain one (or all) of the following:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> 1. Why are you (or other communities networks in general)
>> >>>>>> having or had trouble getting resources?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This section was put in place to attempt to provide a mechanism by
>> which community networks could gain access
>> >>>>> to IPv6 resources for the following reasons:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 1. Encourage the use of IPv6 by community networks.
>> >>>>> 2. Provide an avenue by which the board could provide
>> a reduced fee structure for community networks.
>> >>>>> (The board has, so far, elected not to do so)
>> >>>>> 3. Lower the barrier to qualification for relatively
>> small blocks of IPv6 address space for operators
>> >>>>> of community networks.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> At the time the policy was introduced into the NRPM, the barrier to
>> entry for a community network (which would be
>> >>>>> treated as an ISP) was a minimum commitment of $2,500 per year
>> (IIRC, possibly even $5,000).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Many community networks struggle to fund pizza for a monthly
>> meeting.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Several representatives of community networks, myself included,
>> approached the board and were told that ???The board
>> >>>>> would need a definition of community networks in policy before it
>> could provide any fee relief to such organizations.???
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The policy half was put in place and then the board declined to
>> provide any of the requested fee relief. Since then,
>> >>>>> several changes (reductions) in fees have occurred.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Today, fees are likely no longer a significant barrier to community
>> networks use of this policy. However, that is a
>> >>>>> very recent event and I would like to see us give community
>> networks some time to determine whether this is a useful
>> >>>>> avenue or not.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Further, since this is an IPv6-only policy, it may well be that
>> most community networks still don???t perceive it as
>> >>>>> practical to implement an IPv6 based network and so aren???t ready
>> to take advantage of the policy yet, preferring instead
>> >>>>> to focus on whatever mechanism they are using to deal with IPv4.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> 2. Is the current policy is sufficient for you
>> >>>>>> (and other community networks like you)
>> >>>>>> to get space without sections 2.11 and 6.5.9?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> From the perspective of the community networks I???ve been actively
>> involved in, it???s a mixed bag. There are still
>> >>>>> advantages to preserving these sections in some instances.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> 3. Do you (and others like you) believe they should
>> >>>>>> qualify under "Community Networks" but do not because
>> >>>>>> the definition is overly narrow?
>> >>>>>> [explain how we might extend the definition to cover you]
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> From the perspective of the community networks I???ve been actively
>> involved in, policy was not the problem,
>> >>>>> cost was the problem. The policy as is is helpful, but was not
>> helpful enough. Recent general changes to
>> >>>>> the fee structure would now make taking advantage of the policy
>> economically viable to some of these
>> >>>>> networks.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> 4. Did you get space under a different policy,
>> >>>>>> but still believe you would have been better served
>> >>>>>> if you were able to fit under the "Communities Networks"
>> >>>>>> definition?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> From the perspective of the community networks I???ve been actively
>> involved in, no. Economics being the
>> >>>>> primary barrier, no other policy would work, either. Yes, we would
>> have been better served under the
>> >>>>> community networks definition _IF_ such service had been
>> economically viable, but that was not the
>> >>>>> case until recent changes.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Please note if you think you should be considered a community
>> network,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> and why. (e.g. I am Your Neighborhood Net. We should be
>> considered a
>> >>>>>> community network because we offer "free" WiFi to our community.
>> We
>> >>>>>> hold monthly meetings that cost $10 / person, but half of that
>> covers the
>> >>>>>> price of the pizza, the rest is a donation for our ISP fees and
>> replacement
>> >>>>>> equipment. Occasionally, a community member will buy and donate
an
>> >>>>>> access point so they can get better coverage, or speed. Neither
>> >>>>>> Your Neighborhood Net, nor people associated with it make any
>> money)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> All of the community networks I???ve been involved in had no cost
>> to attend their monthly meetings,
>> >>>>> provided free wifi to some service community, depended on donations
>> from local ISPs or other businesses
>> >>>>> (service donations) for connectivity, and if there was pizza at the
>> meeting, it was funded by everyone
>> >>>>> chipping in for the pizza. The equipment was generally donated
>> and/or purchased with donations from
>> >>>>> individual organizers/volunteers involved in the community network.
>> Space and power for the equipment
>> >>>>> was donated by individuals, companies, and in some cases, civic
>> entities (water districts, police,
>> >>>>> EMA, etc.).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Many of these networks were/are operated by Amateur Radio operators
>> and often had some connection and/or
>> >>>>> intent to provide services for ARES/RACES and/or local emergency
>> management authorities.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Please ask any community networks you know to chime in on this
>> thread!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Though I am no longer directly actively involved in any of these
>> networks, I hope that the above
>> >>>>> historical and current information is useful to the discussion.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Owen
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Alyssa Moore
>> >>>> 403.437.0601 <(403)%20437-0601>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > Message: 3
>> > Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:27:47 +0000
>> > From: Steven Ryerse <SRyerse at eclipse-networks.com>
>> > To: "hostmaster at uneedus.com" <hostmaster at uneedus.com>, Alfredo
>> > Calderon <calderon.alfredo at gmail.com>
>> > Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of
>> > Community Networks
>> > Message-ID: <f634c6bd263945899241c41621b5cbe5 at eclipse-networks.com>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> >
>> > I think Community Networks need their special consideration. My two
>> cents. ?
>> >
>> >
>> > Steven Ryerse
>> > President
>> > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338
>> > 770.656.1460 <(770)%20656-1460> - Cell
>> > 770.399.9099 <(770)%20399-9099> - Office
>> > 770.392.0076 <(770)%20392-0076> - Fax
>> >
>> > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc.
>> > ??????? Conquering Complex Networks?
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of
>> hostmaster at uneedus.com
>> > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 10:10 AM
>> > To: Alfredo Calderon <calderon.alfredo at gmail.com>
>> > Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community
>> Networks
>> >
>> > I caution this writer and anyone else responding to Draft Policy
>> > ARIN-2017-2 of the following:
>> >
>> > Anyone in FAVOR of ARIN-2017-2 is in favor of elimination of all
>> language that is currently in the policy manual regarding community
>> networks.
>> >
>> > The comments below seem to be in favor of some kind of community
>> networks remaining with positive policy and regulatory treatment, a
>> position that seems to be the opposite of being in favor of elimination
of
>> the community network policy in total.
>> >
>> > Most of the comments, including mine is actually AGAINST elimination of
>> the community network aspects of the policy manual contained in 2017-2,
>> with the idea to propose better definitions in the existing policy,
keeping
>> that policy, lowering the 100% volunteer requirement, and other things to
>> make that policy so that actual community networks can use it.
>> >
>> > Since I am unclear of what you intended, please try to better express
>> your exact position in regard to if you intended to be in favor of
striking
>> the community network portions from the policy manual in total, or are
you
>> in favor of some kind of amendments that will make the existing language
>> more useable by these community networks?
>> >
>> > Albert Erdmann
>> > Network Administrator
>> > Paradise On Line Inc.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alfredo Calderon wrote:
>> >
>> >> I also believe that in some regions within U.S. and its territories
>> there has been a lack of engaging and announcing the opportunities
>> available for Community Networks. During our ARIN on the Roar in San
Juan,
>> Puerto Rico we will make it a point to enphasize it.
>> >>
>> >> Sent from my "iPad Air"
>> >>
>> >> Alfredo Calder?n
>> >> Email: calderon.alfredo at gmail.com
>> >> Twylah: http://www.twylah.com/acalderon52
>> >> Twitter: acalderon52
>> >> Skype: Alfredo_1212
>> >> Business card: http://myonepage.com/ acalderon
>> >> Scoop.it: http://www.scoop.it/t/aprendiendo-a-distancia
>> >> Blog: http://aprendizajedistancia.blogspot.com
>> >> Twitter news: http://paper.li/ acalderon52
>> >>
>> >>> On Jun 13, 2017, at 5:33 PM, Carlton Samuels <
>> carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> For the record, we have been promoting a positive policy and
>> regulatory embrace of community networks in Caribbean jurisdictions for a
>> long while. The context is service disparities occasioned by prohibitive
>> costs.
>> >>>
>> >>> Those of us in the struggle see community networks as means to
>> overcome the service disparities we see between communities just outside
>> main distribution and at the edge of public networks which become
>> underserved or simply not served because the provisioning is not
>> commercially viable for providers. The economic viability of these
networks
>> once established are top of mind and centre of all concerns.
>> >>>
>> >>> Some jurisdictions - like those in the ECTEL area - have responded
>> with enabling policy and regulatory treatment. In Jamaica we have had a
>> few projects for these networks making use of of 'tv whitespaces' and
>> forbearance in fees from spectrum management authorities. We would wish
>> ARIN to be part of the solution.
>> >>>
>> >>> While we have reservations about the criteria for qualification and
>> ARIN fee structure, I support the ARIN 2017-2 policy.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Carlton Samuels
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ==============================
>> >>> Carlton A Samuels
>> >>> Mobile: 876-818-1799 <(876)%20818-1799>
>> >>> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>> >>> =============================
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Alyssa Moore <
>> alyssa at alyssamoore.ca> wrote:
>> >>>> Hello PPML,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I?d like to spark more discussion on the Removal of Community
>> Networks proposal.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Here?s a brief history again (and thanks, Owen, for the first run at
>> it).
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The policy was first implemented to
>> >>>> Encourage uptake of IPv6 in community networks Reduce the threshold
>> >>>> for qualification for community networks on small blocks of IPv6
>> >>>> Provide some fee relief
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As Owen noted, the fees at the time were much higher with a minimum
>> commitment of $2500.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The fees now are much more accessible at:
>> >>>> 3X-Small *
>> >>>>
>> >>>> $250
>> >>>>
>> >>>> /24 or smaller
>> >>>>
>> >>>> /40 or smaller
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2X-Small
>> >>>>
>> >>>> $500
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Larger than /24,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> up to and including /22
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Larger than /40,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> up to and including /36
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> At the meeting in New Orleans, we heard from a few folks who are
>> involved in Community Nets. At the mic, they expressed concern that:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> They didn?t know special provisions existed for Community Nets in
>> >>>> the first place but were pleased that such provisions do exist The
>> definition in 2.11 is too restrictive. None of the self-identified
>> community networks in attendance would have qualified under the
definition
>> - notably, the 100% volunteer-run requirement.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In further discussions, I?ve gleaned that the current fees are not a
>> large concern, but that operators of community networks are pleased to be
>> specifically recognized in the policy manual.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It is my feeling, from this feedback, that any problem here may be
>> more of an engagement and communications issue with community networks
than
>> a qualification and fee problem that can be solved in policy. This,
>> admittedly is a challenge for the network operators with limited
resources
>> one one end, and for ARIN to be doing outreach on the other.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Look forward to further discussion.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Alyssa
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:31 AM Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Mar 21, 2017, at 12:07 , Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I would offer a friendly amendment to Scott's request to open the
>> >>>>>> question up more generally... (we should not confuse if a policy
>> >>>>>> is being used, with if it is needed).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Can "Community Networks" please chime into this thread and explain
>> >>>>>> one (or all) of the following:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> 1. Why are you (or other communities networks in general) having
>> >>>>>> or had trouble getting resources?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This section was put in place to attempt to provide a mechanism by
>> >>>>> which community networks could gain access to IPv6 resources for
>> the following reasons:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 1. Encourage the use of IPv6 by community networks.
>> >>>>> 2. Provide an avenue by which the board could provide
>> a reduced fee structure for community networks.
>> >>>>> (The board has, so far, elected not to do so)
>> >>>>> 3. Lower the barrier to qualification for relatively
>> small blocks of IPv6 address space for operators
>> >>>>> of community networks.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> At the time the policy was introduced into the NRPM, the barrier to
>> >>>>> entry for a community network (which would be treated as an ISP)
>> was a minimum commitment of $2,500 per year (IIRC, possibly even $5,000).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Many community networks struggle to fund pizza for a monthly
>> meeting.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Several representatives of community networks, myself included,
>> >>>>> approached the board and were told that ?The board would need a
>> definition of community networks in policy before it could provide any
fee
>> relief to such organizations.?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The policy half was put in place and then the board declined to
>> >>>>> provide any of the requested fee relief. Since then, several
>> changes (reductions) in fees have occurred.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Today, fees are likely no longer a significant barrier to community
>> >>>>> networks use of this policy. However, that is a very recent event
>> >>>>> and I would like to see us give community networks some time to
>> determine whether this is a useful avenue or not.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Further, since this is an IPv6-only policy, it may well be that
>> >>>>> most community networks still don?t perceive it as practical to
>> >>>>> implement an IPv6 based network and so aren?t ready to take
>> advantage of the policy yet, preferring instead to focus on whatever
>> mechanism they are using to deal with IPv4.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> 2. Is the current policy is sufficient for you (and other
>> >>>>>> community networks like you) to get space without sections 2.11
>> >>>>>> and 6.5.9?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> From the perspective of the community networks I?ve been actively
>> >>>>> involved in, it?s a mixed bag. There are still advantages to
>> preserving these sections in some instances.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> 3. Do you (and others like you) believe they should qualify under
>> >>>>>> "Community Networks" but do not because the definition is overly
>> >>>>>> narrow?
>> >>>>>> [explain how we might extend the definition to cover you]
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> From the perspective of the community networks I?ve been actively
>> >>>>> involved in, policy was not the problem, cost was the problem. The
>> >>>>> policy as is is helpful, but was not helpful enough. Recent general
>> >>>>> changes to the fee structure would now make taking advantage of the
>> policy economically viable to some of these networks.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> 4. Did you get space under a different policy, but still believe
>> >>>>>> you would have been better served if you were able to fit under
>> >>>>>> the "Communities Networks"
>> >>>>>> definition?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> From the perspective of the community networks I?ve been actively
>> >>>>> involved in, no. Economics being the primary barrier, no other
>> >>>>> policy would work, either. Yes, we would have been better served
>> >>>>> under the community networks definition _IF_ such service had been
>> economically viable, but that was not the case until recent changes.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Please note if you think you should be considered a community
>> >>>>>> network,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> and why. (e.g. I am Your Neighborhood Net. We should be
>> >>>>>> considered a community network because we offer "free" WiFi to our
>> >>>>>> community. We hold monthly meetings that cost $10 / person, but
>> >>>>>> half of that covers the price of the pizza, the rest is a donation
>> >>>>>> for our ISP fees and replacement equipment. Occasionally, a
>> >>>>>> community member will buy and donate an access point so they can
>> >>>>>> get better coverage, or speed. Neither Your Neighborhood Net, nor
>> >>>>>> people associated with it make any money)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> All of the community networks I?ve been involved in had no cost to
>> >>>>> attend their monthly meetings, provided free wifi to some service
>> >>>>> community, depended on donations from local ISPs or other
>> >>>>> businesses (service donations) for connectivity, and if there was
>> >>>>> pizza at the meeting, it was funded by everyone chipping in for the
>> >>>>> pizza. The equipment was generally donated and/or purchased with
>> >>>>> donations from individual organizers/volunteers involved in the
>> community network. Space and power for the equipment was donated by
>> individuals, companies, and in some cases, civic entities (water
districts,
>> police, EMA, etc.).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Many of these networks were/are operated by Amateur Radio operators
>> >>>>> and often had some connection and/or intent to provide services for
>> ARES/RACES and/or local emergency management authorities.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Please ask any community networks you know to chime in on this
>> thread!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Though I am no longer directly actively involved in any of these
>> >>>>> networks, I hope that the above historical and current information
>> is useful to the discussion.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Owen
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Alyssa Moore
>> >>>> 403.437.0601 <(403)%20437-0601>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > Subject: Digest Footer
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > ARIN-PPML mailing list
>> > ARIN-PPML at arin.net
>> > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 144, Issue 26
>> > ******************************************
>> >
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rudi Daniel
>> *danielcharles consulting
>> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-
and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>*
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/
attachments/20170616/99854a8d/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML mailing list
ARIN-PPML at arin.net
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
------------------------------
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 144, Issue 29
******************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170616/1303ae19/attachment.htm>
More information about the ARIN-PPML
mailing list