Agreed. I can't think of a good reason why this came up to be honest. "Simplification" == "time sink" != value.
Cheers, -M< On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:43 Rudolph Daniel <[email protected]> wrote: > For clarity, I do not support the proposal as written and I would never be > in support of removing community networks from the policy manual. > RD > > On Friday, June 16, 2017, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to > > [email protected] > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > [email protected] > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > [email protected] > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. When the abuse continues (Marilson) > > 2. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks > > ([email protected]) > > 3. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks > > (Steven Ryerse) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:09:36 -0300 > > From: "Marilson" <[email protected]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Subject: [arin-ppml] When the abuse continues > > Message-ID: <2F43E6043BA4477C96612145B9A5F4DA@xPC> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > > > On June 12, 2017 1:15 PM Albert wrote: > >> If you were the administrator and you did what you said after a report, > I > > would see the abuse stopped (in this case simply beacuse you cut that > user > > off), I would consider that a success, not a failure. When I send a > > report, stopping the abuse is more important than an email response. > > > >> ...If a reasonable time goes by and I still have not seen the connection > > attempts stop, I see this as ignoring abuse reports, and this is what I > > speak of. > > > > I need a little help. What should we do, whom should we complain about, > when abuse continues? Please consider the fact that although there are no > borders on the internet, nations still have borders and their own > jurisdiction. > > > > Thanks > > Marilson > > -------------- next part -------------- > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > > URL: < > http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20170616/12b4e17d/attachment-0001.html > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 10:09:58 -0400 (EDT) > > From: [email protected] > > To: Alfredo Calderon <[email protected]> > > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of > > Community Networks > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-unknown"; Format="flowed" > > > > I caution this writer and anyone else responding to Draft Policy > > ARIN-2017-2 of the following: > > > > Anyone in FAVOR of ARIN-2017-2 is in favor of elimination of all language > > that is currently in the policy manual regarding community networks. > > > > The comments below seem to be in favor of some kind of community networks > > remaining with positive policy and regulatory treatment, a position that > > seems to be the opposite of being in favor of elimination of the > community > > network policy in total. > > > > Most of the comments, including mine is actually AGAINST elimination of > > the community network aspects of the policy manual contained in 2017-2, > > with the idea to propose better definitions in the existing policy, > > keeping that policy, lowering the 100% volunteer requirement, and other > > things to make that policy so that actual community networks can use it. > > > > Since I am unclear of what you intended, please try to better express > your > > exact position in regard to if you intended to be in favor of striking > the > > community network portions from the policy manual in total, or are you in > > favor of some kind of amendments that will make the existing language > more > > useable by these community networks? > > > > Albert Erdmann > > Network Administrator > > Paradise On Line Inc. > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alfredo Calderon wrote: > > > >> 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 Calder??n > >> 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. > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 3 > > Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:27:47 +0000 > > From: Steven Ryerse <[email protected]> > > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Alfredo > > Calderon <[email protected]> > > Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of > > Community Networks > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > I think Community Networks need their special consideration. My two > cents. ? > > > > > > Steven Ryerse > > President > > 100 Ashford Center North, Suite 110, Atlanta, GA? 30338 > > 770.656.1460 - Cell > > 770.399.9099 - Office > > 770.392.0076 - Fax > > > > ? Eclipse Networks, Inc. > > ??????? Conquering Complex Networks? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 10:10 AM > > To: Alfredo Calderon <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community > Networks > > > > I caution this writer and anyone else responding to Draft Policy > > ARIN-2017-2 of the following: > > > > Anyone in FAVOR of ARIN-2017-2 is in favor of elimination of all > language that is currently in the policy manual regarding community > networks. > > > > The comments below seem to be in favor of some kind of community > networks remaining with positive policy and regulatory treatment, a > position that seems to be the opposite of being in favor of elimination of > the community network policy in total. > > > > Most of the comments, including mine is actually AGAINST elimination of > the community network aspects of the policy manual contained in 2017-2, > with the idea to propose better definitions in the existing policy, keeping > that policy, lowering the 100% volunteer requirement, and other things to > make that policy so that actual community networks can use it. > > > > Since I am unclear of what you intended, please try to better express > your exact position in regard to if you intended to be in favor of striking > the community network portions from the policy manual in total, or are you > in favor of some kind of amendments that will make the existing language > more useable by these community networks? > > > > Albert Erdmann > > Network Administrator > > Paradise On Line Inc. > > > > > > On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alfredo Calderon wrote: > > > >> 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 Calder?n > >> 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. > >> > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ARIN-PPML mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 144, Issue 26 > > ****************************************** > > > > -- > > Rudi Daniel > *danielcharles consulting > <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774>* > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
