Aside from a few grammar issues, it's on the simpler side of the spectrum as it stands.
There's a third option which is 'do nothing'. +1 in favor of abandoning. Bigger fish to fry, and nothing wrong demonstrating a little compassion. What's good for the Internet is good for us and this is good for the Internet whether its being used or not. Cheers, -M< On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:03 Cj Aronson <[email protected]> wrote: > It came up because in the entire history of the Community Networks policy > it has never been used once. So either it's not needed or it needs to be > changed so that it serves some part of the community. > > -----Cathy > > > {Ô,Ô} > (( )) > ◊ ◊ > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Martin Hannigan <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> 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 <(876)%20818-1799> >>> >>> 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 <(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. >>> >> >>> > >>> > ------------------------------ >>> > >>> > 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 <(770)%20656-1460> - Cell >>> > 770.399.9099 <(770)%20399-9099> - Office >>> > 770.392.0076 <(770)%20392-0076> - 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 <(876)%20818-1799> >>> >>> 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 <(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. >>> >> >>> > >>> > ------------------------------ >>> > >>> > 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. >> > >
_______________________________________________ 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.
