[NA-Discuss] Fwd: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks

Tue Jun 13 18:33:10 UTC 2017

Hi all,

For those that haven't seen it, Alyssa is asking for more discussion on 
the community networks proposal on the ARIN PPML list. Now's the time to 
have your say!

Sign up here if you've not already done so:
https://www.arin.net/participate/mailing_lists/index.html

Susannah

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community 
Networks
Date: 	Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:44:02 +0000
From: 	Alyssa Moore <alyssa at alyssamoore.ca>
To: 	Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com>
CC: 	arin-ppml at arin.net <arin-ppml at arin.net>

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 <owen at delong.com 
<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:

     > On Mar 21, 2017, at 12:07 , Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com
    <mailto:jschiller at google.com>> 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 (ARIN-PPML at arin.net
    <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
    Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
    http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
    Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you
    experience any issues.

-- 
Alyssa Moore
403.437.0601
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20170613/e56018bf/attachment-0001.html>