[arin-ppml] ARIN_2017-2

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Fri Jun 16 11:15:01 EDT 2017


Aside from a few grammar issues, it's on the simpler side of the spectrum
as it stands.

There's a third option which is 'do nothing'.

+1 in favor of abandoning. Bigger fish to fry, and nothing wrong
demonstrating a little compassion. What's good for the Internet is good for
us and this is good for the Internet whether its being used or not.

Cheers,

-M<



On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:03 Cj Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> {Ô,Ô}
>   (( ))
>   ◊  ◊
>
> 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: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170616/76298156/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list