[arin-ppml] ARIN_2017-2

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Fri Jun 16 10:59:27 EDT 2017


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
> >>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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 - Cell
> > 770.399.9099 - Office
> > 770.392.0076 - 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
> >>> 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
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170616/b7ecf103/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list