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 Calderón Email: [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> > 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 > Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround > ============================= > >> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:44 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 >> 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 <[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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
