Alyssa: After talking to Cathy Aronson and others about this issue at ARIN 39, I now support Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2 as written.
José R. de la Cruz [email protected] On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Alyssa Moore <[email protected]> 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 > > 1. > > Encourage uptake of IPv6 in community networks > 2. > > Reduce the threshold for qualification for community networks on small > blocks of IPv6 > 3. > > 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 * <https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#threex> > > $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: > > > > 1. > > They didn’t know special provisions existed for Community Nets in the > first place but were pleased that such provisions do exist > 2. > > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > On Mar 21, 2017, at 12:07 , Jason Schiller <[email protected]> >> 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 ([email protected]). >> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: >> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml >> Please contact [email protected] 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 ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. >
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
