[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks

Mon Jun 26 09:04:15 EDT 2017

The Internet Society has published a *draft* policy related to community
networks (attached) which is under member review. Although geared towards
spectrum use, they do define what a community network is (page 2).

*The local community network generally is a “local community join[ing]
together to pay for the common infrastructure based on the value realized
by the community as a whole.” Community networks are built and operated by
people in the community; they are the result of people working together,
combining their resources, organizing their efforts, and connecting
themselves.*

Their definition has a different view from NRPM 2.11.

José

José R. de la Cruz
jrdelacruz at acm.org

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:44 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
>
>    1.
>
>    Encourage uptake of IPv6 in community networks
>    2.
>
>    Reduce the threshold for qualification for community networks on small
>    blocks of IPv6
>    3.
>
>    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 * <https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#threex>
>
> $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:
>
>
>
>    1.
>
>    They didn’t know special provisions existed for Community Nets in the
>    first place but were pleased that such provisions do exist
>    2.
>
>    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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170626/4df36336/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ISOC-PolicyBrief-Spectrum-20170613-PREVIEW.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 314164 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170626/4df36336/attachment.pdf>