Don’t know if I responded to this for sure but agree it should be advanced.
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 3:33 PM David Farmer <far...@umn.edu> wrote:
> Unless there are additional comments or suggestions, I plan to propose
> this Policy is advanced to Recommended Draft Policy at the AC's February
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 7:46 AM, ARIN <i...@arin.net> wrote:
>> The following has been revised and re-titled:
>> * Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks
>> Revised text is below and can be found at:
>> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
>> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft
>> policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated
>> in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>> * Technically Sound
>> * Supported by the Community
>> The PDP can be found at:
>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>> Sean Hopkins
>> Policy Analyst
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks
>> Problem Statement:
>> The Community Networks section of the NRPM has only been used once since
>> implementation in January 2010. Proposal ARIN-2016-7, to increase the
>> number of use cases, was abandoned by the Advisory Council due to lack of
>> feedback. Proposal ARIN 2017-2, to remove all mention of community networks
>> from NRPM met with opposition by the community. Many responded that the
>> definition of "community network" was too narrow, which could be the reason
>> for lack of uptake.
>> In the discussion at ARIN 40, it was clear that more than just the
>> definition of a community network needed revision and that community
>> networks need to have allocations, not assignments. Additionally, community
>> networks need to make reassignments to end-users in accordance with
>> applicable policies.
>> Policy statement:
>> Replace section 2.11 with the following;
>> 2.11 Community Network
>> A community network is deployed, operated, and governed by its users, for
>> the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity to the community it
>> services. Users of the network or other volunteers must play a primary role
>> in the governance of the organization, whereas other functions may be
>> handled by either paid staff or volunteers.
>> Rename section 6.5.9 and revise the last sentence as follows;
>> 6.5.9. Community Network Allocations
> While community networks would normally be considered to be ISP type
>> organizations under existing ARIN criteria, they tend to operate on much
>> tighter budgets and often depend on volunteer labor. As a result, they tend
>> to be much smaller and more communal in their organization rather than
>> provider/customer relationships of commercial ISPs. This section seeks to
>> provide a policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing
>> community network to receive a smaller allocation than other LIRs or
>> commercial ISPs.
> Community networks may also qualify under section 6.5.2 as a regular LIR.
>> Section 188.8.131.52 is not changing, but is included here for completeness;
>> 184.108.40.206. Qualification Criteria
>> To qualify under this section, a community network must demonstrate to
>> ARIN's satisfaction that it meets the definition of a community network
>> under section 2.11 of the NRPM.
>> Replace section 220.127.116.11 and 18.104.22.168 with the following;
>> 22.214.171.124. Allocation Size
>> Community networks are eligible only to receive an allocation of /40 of
>> IPv6 resources under this section. Community networks that wish to receive
>> a larger initial allocation or any subsequent allocations must qualify as a
>> regular LIR, see sections 6.5.2 or 6.5.3 respectively.
>> 126.96.36.199. Reassignments by Community Networks
>> Similar to other LIRs, Community networks shall make reassignments to
>> end-users in accordance with applicable policies, in particular, but not
>> limited to sections 6.5.4 and 6.5.5. However, they shall not reallocate
>> resources under this section.
>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>> Anything Else:
>> The rationale for restricting community networks that receive resources
>> through this policy from making reallocations is that a /40 is a tiny IPv6
>> allocation and it does not seem reasonable to subdivide such a small
>> allocation into even smaller reallocations.
>> Also, the recommended size for reassignment is /48, to even the smallest
>> end-users, and therefore a /40 only provides 256 such reassignments.
I agree they should become or apply for or meet the criteria for a regular
LIR to get a /36.
> If a community network needs to make reallocations, maybe to other
>> cooperating community networks in their area, they should apply as, or
>> become, a regular LIR. As the smallest regular LIR, they would get a /36,
>> allowing more than sufficient room to subdivide the allocation into several
>> reasonable sized reallocations as necessary.
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
> David Farmer Email:far...@umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 <(612)%20626-0815>
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 <(612)%20812-9952>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.