Keith,
Which criterion in 6.5.2.2 (ISP initial) would a small community network qualify under? Or 6.5.8.1 (end user initial)? Answer: it's been proven by the community networks folks that in many cases a requisite couldn't meet any of those criteria. They need special language, and got it. :-) > On Aug 9, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Keith W. Hare <ke...@jcc.com> wrote: > > From a quick read of the Community Networks section, I don’t see where > someone saves anything by qualifying as a Community Network. > > So, I support draft policy 2016-6 as written, but would also support a > proposal that completely eliminates the Community Networks sections. > > Keith > > > Keith W. Hare > ke...@jcc.com > JCC Consulting, Inc. > 600 Newark Granville Road > P.O. Box 381 > Granville, Ohio 43023 USA > Phone: +1 740-587-0157 > http://www.jcc.com > > > > > From: arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net] On > Behalf Of David Farmer > Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 11:14 PM > To: arin-ppml@arin.net > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from > NRPM > > As AC Shepherd, I haven't seen much discussions of this one; I think the > Elimination of HD-Ratio is probably fairly non-controversial itself. > > However, in regards to the Community Networks section, I see three high-level > alternatives for the community to consider; > > 1. Rewrite the Community Networks section to not reference HD-Ratio, as > the Draft Policy suggests; > 2. Replace the Community Networks section with a generic small ISP policy > allowing allocations of /40 (qualifying for xxx-small IPv6 fee category); > 3. Remove the Community Networks section all together; It doesn't seem to > have been used since it was adopted, see Dan Alexander's Policy > Simplification presentation, slide #4. If we go this way, 2.11 should be > deleted also; > > https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_37/PDF/tuesday/alexander_simplification.pdf#page=4 > > I think a rewrite in line with the original intent for the Community Networks > section is the proper place to start the conversation, and I think this Draft > Policy does a good job doing that. However since we need to touch the > Community Networks section to accomplish the Elimination of HD-Ratio, I'd > like to hear from some Community Networks to better understand why the > current policy is not being used. Is there some problem with it? Is it just > not necessary? Was it too early? Are Community Networks just being requested > and recorded as other end user requests? > > Personally, I like the idea of the Community Networks policy, but since no > one seems to be using it, maybe we should look at why as part of any rewrite. > > Comments please, even if you simply support the policy as written. Also, if > you know someone involved in operating a Community Network please forward > this to them, I'd really like to hear from them even if they don't want to > post to PPML themselves. > > Thanks. > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 8:21 AM, ARIN <i...@arin.net> wrote: > On 21 July 2016, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) advanced the following > Proposal to Draft Policy status: > > ARIN-prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > This Draft Policy has been numbered and titled: > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2016_6.html > > 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: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html > > Regards, > > Communications and Member Services > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > ########## > > Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM > > Date: 26 July 2016 > > Problem Statement: > > The HD-Ratio has become an anachronism in the NRPM and some of the vestigial > references to it create confusion about recommended prefix sizes for IPv6 > resulting in a belief in the community that ARIN endorses the idea of /56s as > a unit of measure in IPv6 assignments. While there are members of the > community that believe a /56 is a reasonable choice, ARIN policy has always > allowed and still supports /48 prefixes for any and all end-sites without > need for further justification. More restrictive choices are still permitted > under policy as well. This proposal does not change that, but it attempts to > eliminate some possible confusion. > > The last remaining vestigial references to HD-Ratio are contained in the > community networks policy (Section 6.5.9). This policy seeks to replace 6.5.9 > with new text incorporating end user policy by reference (roughly equivalent > to the original intent of 6.5.9 prior to the more recent changes to end-user > policy). While this contains a substantial rewrite to the Community Networks > policy, it will not have any negative impact on community networks. It may > increase the amount of IPv6 space a community network could receive due to > the change from HD-Ratio, but not more than any other similar sized end-user > would receive under existing policy. > > Policy statement: > > Replace section 6.5.9 in its entirety as follows: > > 6.5.9 Community Network Assignments > > 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 policy that is more friendly to those environments by allowing them > to use end-user criteria. 6.5.9.1 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. 6.5.9.2 Receiving Resources > > Once qualified under this section, a community network shall be treated as an > end-user assignment for all ARIN purposes (both policy and fee structure) > unless or until the board adopts a specific more favorable fee structure for > community networks. > > Community networks shall be eligible under this section only for IPv6 > resources and the application process and use of those resources shall be > governed by the existing end-user policy contained in section 6.5.8 et. seq. > > Community networks seeking other resources shall remain subject to the > policies governing those resources independent of their election to use this > policy for IPv6 resources. > > Delete section 2.8 — This section is non-operative and conflicts with the > definitions of utilization contained in current policies. > > Delete section 2.9 — This section is no longer operative. > > Delete section 6.7 — This section is no longer applicable. > > Comments: > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > Anything else > > Originally, I thought this would be an editorial change as the HD-Ratio has > been unused for several years. > > However, further research revealed that it is still referenced in the > Community Networks policy which has also gone unused since its inception. As > a result, I am going to attempt to simultaneously simplify the Community > Networks policy while preserving its intent and eliminate the HD-Ratio from > the NRPM. > > I realize that fees are out of scope for policy, however, in this case, we > are not setting fees. We are addressing in policy which fee structure the > given policy should operate under in a manner which does not constrain board > action on actual fees. > > This is an attempt to preserve the original intent of the Community networks > policy in a way that may make it less vestigial. > > Alternatively, we could simply delete Section 6.5.9 if that is preferred. The > primary goal here is to get rid of vestigial reference to HD-Ratio rather > than to get wrapped around the axle on community networks. > _______________________________________________ > PPML > 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: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > 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 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > _______________________________________________ > PPML > 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: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ PPML 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: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
