<div dir="ltr">Thinking on this a bit, I see three things:<div><br></div><div>1. What is the problem?</div><div>2. Value in designating community networks</div><div>3. Fees?</div><div><br></div><div>TL;DR - do we need a definition? If so, we need a useful one first.</div><div><br></div><div>---------------------------------</div><div>1. What is the problem?</div><div> Is there a group of organizations who are unable to get IPv6? </div><div> If so why?</div><div> </div><div> Answering that question will result in a clear problem statement.</div><div> </div><div> The next question is is there a generic solution, </div><div> OR does the solution need to be scoped to only community nets.</div><div><br></div><div> If the problem cannot be solved generically, then we will need a </div><div> useful definition of community networks</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div>---------------------------------</div><div>2. Value in designating community networks</div></div><div> Looking at the problem from the reverse direction suggests that</div><div> having a definition of community networks does two things:</div><div> A. it establishes that the numbers community values community networks</div><div> and that the community is supportive treating them differently if needed</div><div> B. It has a definition that is ready to be applied if at some future time </div><div> community networks require special treatment.</div><div><br></div><div><div> If we want to continue to have a definition, then we will need a </div><div> useful definition of community networks</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div>---------------------------------</div></div><div>3. Fees?</div><div> Is this all about fees?</div><div> Fees are not established in policy, but the community network stuff</div><div> found its way into the NRPM in order to encourage and support the </div><div> ARIN Board being able to discount fees to community networks.</div><div><br></div><div> I don't know how that discussion went, but the Board decided to not</div><div> discount community networks, but instead provide a more generic </div><div> solution of lowering billing for the very small. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>-----------------------------</div><div>Thoughts:</div><div><br></div><div>The fee problem was solved generically and is generally considered an </div><div>acceptable solution to most community networks.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>We do not have a useful definition of community networks.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>If we have a class of organizations that can't get IPv6, and </div><div>we can't solve this generically, we will need a useful definition</div><div>of community networks. (first step is identifying the problem)</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>If we want to keep the community networks definition in the NRPM, </div><div>(because:</div><div> - it demonstrates community networks are valuable</div><div> - shows the numbers community is willing to treat them differently</div><div> - is available for application to future solutions that cannot be solved </div><div> generically) </div><div>then we need a useful definition of community networks.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Having a definition of community networks with no references to it</div><div>in the NRPM seems weird and irrelevant.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Removing the definition from the NRPM, doesn't mean we:</div><div> - are throwing away the definition</div><div> - don't value community networks</div><div> - won't consider how future policy changes might impact</div><div> community networks</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Removing the definition from the NRPM, doesn't mean we <br></div><div>can not continue to find a useful definition for community </div><div>networks, that has the support of the numbers community, </div><div>and can easily be added when we find a future policy change</div><div>that is problematic for community networks and cannot be</div><div>solved generically. </div><div>[This can be recorder in PPML, and recognized by the </div><div> ARIN AC as having community support, but be tabled</div><div> until there is a policy proposal that needs such a carve out.]</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Can we avoid the problem of defining a community network</div><div>by defining some other class that contains the community </div><div>networks that would have been negatively impacted. </div><div>(This is what we did for billing by creating a 3X-Small category)</div><div>Could a carve out for "small transit provider" as defined with</div><div>having 200 or less customers be used instead of a "community </div><div>networks" definition. </div><div>(the definition could mention this class is expected to contain all</div><div> community networks that are not large enough to avoid impact, </div><div> or similar notes could be included in the policy rational)</div><div> <br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>___Jason</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Jose R. de la Cruz III <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jrdelacruz@acm.org" target="_blank">jrdelacruz@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">Jason:<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">If changing, updating, or "fixing" the definition will make an impact on community networks, then it should be done. I still do not see much of an impact even if the change is performed. Most have commented that money is the main reason for their "troubles", so the change will not affect their fees.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:georgia,serif;font-size:small">José<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span class=""><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_2572178282240836747gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>José R. de la Cruz<br></div><a href="mailto:jrdelacruz@acm.org" target="_blank">jrdelacruz@acm.org</a><br></div></div></div>
<br></span><div><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Jason Schiller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Marita,<div><br></div><div>I take to message to mean having ARIN policy for community networks </div><div>is helpful, and the policy is not used by community networks, because </div><div>the 100% volunteer requirement disqualifies many who would benefit </div><div>which is why the policy has gone unused.</div><div><br></div><div>The next step is coming up with a definition that will support community </div><div>networks, but not allow other organizations to abuse the definition as a</div><div>loophole.</div><div><br></div><div>The conversation needs to shift to how do we define "community networks"</div><div>in a useful way.</div><div><br></div><div>Propose a definition for community networks.</div><div><br></div><div>Can you borrow from other definitions of community networks </div><div>that you come across in your sphere, such as say the tax codes, </div><div>or access to some other privilege that community networks may </div><div>be granted?</div><div><br></div><div>I suspect the ARIN community would be happy dropping the volunteer</div><div>requirement if there was some other way to separate out things</div><div>that are community networks.</div><span class="m_2572178282240836747HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>__Jason</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></font></span></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="m_2572178282240836747h5">On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Marita Moll <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net" target="_blank">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a>></span> wrote:<br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class="m_2572178282240836747h5">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hello all. As part of
NARALO, I attended the ARIN mtg in New Orleans and became aware
of the policy re: community networks. I don't have all the
details others can contribute. But I have been involved on the
policy side with community networks in Canada for 20 years, so
can provide a small slice of context from here.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">I totally agree that community networks
see a lot of value in being recognized in ARIN policy. The few
are doing well, others struggle to exist. But they have been
and in some areas are still an important part of the Internet
access landscape. </font></font><font face="Times New Roman,
Times, serif"><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">It is
difficult, as it is, to even locate these scattered entities.
Deleting language the recognizes their existence would be a
shame. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">The 100% volunteer driven requirement is
not realistic. I don't know what it should be. Even 70%
volunteer driven might not bring in much more activity in the
short term but it would be a recognition that the non-profit/cooperative
model is a viable option for communities trying to manage
their own access issues.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">Marita Moll</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><font face="Times New
Roman, Times, serif">Telecommunities Canada (loose coalition
of community networks in Canada)<br>
</font> </font></p>
</div>
<br></div></div><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><span><div class="m_2572178282240836747m_-3259746695434165857gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><font face="'courier new', monospace" color="#555555"><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial"><font face="'courier new', monospace" color="#555555">______________________________<wbr>_________________________<br></font><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@goog<wbr>le.com</a>|<a href="tel:(571)%20266-0006" value="+15712660006" target="_blank">571-266-0006</a></font></div><div><font face="'courier new', monospace"><br></font></div></span></div></font></div>
</span></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace"><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial"><font color="#555555" face="'courier new', monospace">_______________________________________________________<br></font><div><font face="'courier new', monospace">Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com" target="_blank">jschiller@google.com</a>|571-266-0006</font></div><div><font face="'courier new', monospace"><br></font></div></span></div></font></div>
</div>