[arin-ppml] Revised/Re-titled - Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks

[David Farmer]

Unless there are additional comments or suggestions, I plan to propose this
Policy is advanced to Recommended Draft Policy at the AC's February meeting.

Thanks

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 7:46 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

> The following has been revised and re-titled:
>
> * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks
>
> Revised text is below and can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_8.html
>
> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft
> policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated
> in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>
> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> * Technically Sound
> * Supported by the Community
>
> The PDP can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Sean Hopkins
> Policy Analyst
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
>
>
> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks
>
> 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 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 needed revision and that community
> networks need to have allocations, not assignments. Additionally, community
> networks need to make reassignments to end-users in accordance with
> applicable policies.
> ​​​​​​
> 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 the governance of the organization, whereas 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 a policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing
> community network to receive a smaller allocation than other LIRs or
> commercial ISPs.
>
> Community networks may also qualify under section 6.5.2 as a regular LIR.
>
> Section 6.5.9.1 is not changing, but is included here for completeness;
>
> 6.5.9.1. Qualification Criteria
>
> To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to
> ARIN's satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network
> under section 2.11 of the NRPM.
>
> 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 under this section.
>
> Comments:
>
> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>
> Anything Else:
>
> The rationale for restricting community networks that receive resources
> through this policy from making reallocations is that a /40 is a tiny IPv6
> allocation and it does not seem reasonable to subdivide such a small
> allocation into even smaller reallocations.
>
> Also, the recommended size for reassignment is /48, to even the smallest
> end-users, and therefore a /40 only provides 256 such reassignments.
>
> If a community network needs to make reallocations, maybe to other
> cooperating community networks in their area, they should apply as, or
> become, a regular LIR. As the smallest regular LIR, they would get a /36,
> allowing more than sufficient room to subdivide the allocation into several
> reasonable sized reallocations as necessary.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.




-- 
===============================================
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
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20180131/a67754ab/attachment.htm>