[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks

[hostmaster at uneedus.com]

I support the changes you have made.

This language looks like it could support most types of community 
networks, from the smallest neighbor-to-neighbor links, to larger more 
formal networks like the Southeast Florida Library Information Network.

The fact that the Community network definition only technically covers 
IPv6 resources should not be a problem.  If one were establishing a 
community network today, it is clear the backbone would be IPv6 based. 
With the costs involved in todays market of obtaining IPv4 resources, it 
is very likely that any IPv4 connections would end up being routed thru 
some kind of NAT, with the public addresses provided by the upstream(s) 
being used.

For Florida, one of the largest is SEFLIN.  They are still IPv4 only, 
obtaining many of its resources from Florida Atlantic University.  They 
might simply get a block of IPv6 from FAU when they take the plunge into 
dual stack.  However, even a larger network like theirs could benefit from 
this policy, as even a /40 would still provide growth for new users.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.

On Sat, 13 Jan 2018, David Farmer wrote:

> After taking into account the discussion of ARIN-2017-8 preceding and
> during ARIN 40, here are the proposed revisions for the Problem and Policy
> Statements for ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks.
>
> Note the name of the policy is being changed to account for the expansion
> of the scope of policy changes beyond just the definition of a Community
> Network.
>
> Following any initial comments or suggestion I will move this forward as an
> official update to the Draft Policy in a week or so.
>
> Thanks.
>
> -----
>
> Problem Statement:
>
> The Community Networks section of the NRPM has only been used once since
> implementation in January 2010. Proposal ARIN-2016-7, to increase the
> number of use cases, was abandoned by the Advisory Council due to lack of
> feedback. Proposal ARIN 2017-2, to remove all mention of community networks
> from NRPM was met with opposition by the community. Many responded that the
> definition of "community network" was too narrow, which could be the reason
> for lack of uptake.
>
> In the discussion at ARIN 40, it was clear that more than just the
> definition of a community network needs to be revised and that community
> networks need to have allocations and not assignments made to them.
>
> Policy statement:
>
> Replace section 2.11 with the following;
>
> 2.11 Community Network
>
> *A community network is deployed, operated, and governed by its users, for
> the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity to the community it
> services. Users of the network or other volunteers must play a primary role
> in governance of the organization, other functions may be handled by either
> paid staff or volunteers.*
>
> Rename section 6.5.9 and revise the last sentence as follows;
>
> 6.5.9. Community Network *Allocations*
>
> While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type
> organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much
> tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they tend
> to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than
> provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to
> provide policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing
> *community
> network to receive a smaller allocation than other LIRs or commercial ISPs.*
>
> Replace section 6.5.9.2 and 6.5.9.3 with the following;
>
> *6.5.9.2. Allocation Size*
>
> *Community Networks are eligible only to receive an allocation of /40 of
> IPv6 resources under this section. Community Networks that wish to receive
> a larger initial allocation or any subsequent allocations must qualify as a
> regular LIR, see sections 6.5.2 or 6.5.3 respectively. *
>
> *6.5.9.3. Reassignments by Community Networks*
>
> *Similar to other LIRs, Community Networks shall make reassignments to
> end-users in accordance with applicable policies, in particular but not
> limited to sections 6.5.4 and 6.5.5. However, they shall not reallocate
> resources to other organizations.*
>
> Comments:
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>
> -- 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE        Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
> ===============================================
>