Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks [Archived]

OUT OF DATE?

Here in the Vault, information is published in its final form and then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.

Status: Implemented

Tracking Information

Discussion Tracking

Mailing List:

Formal introduction on PPML on 22 August 2017

Origin - ARIN-prop-243
Draft Policy - 22 August 2017
Recommended - 20 February 2018
Last Call - 23 April 2018
Moved to Board for Review - 22 May 2018
Adopted - 24 May 2018
Implemented - 24 July 2018

Public Policy Mailing List

ARIN Public Policy Meeting:

ARIN 41

ARIN Advisory Council:

AC Shepherds:
David Farmer, Andrew Dul

ARIN Board of Trustees:

Revisions:

Revised - 24 August 2017
Revised - 24 January 2018

Implementation:

24 July 2018

Version Date: 20 February 2018

AC Assessment of Conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy:

This proposal is technically sound and enables fair and impartial number policy by redefining and classifying community networks as an LIR that may receive a smaller than normal allocation of IPv6, a /40. Except for the allocation size and a restriction on making reallocations, community networks will function like any other LIR. Community networks may also qualify as a regular LIR without any limits on size or reallocations. This revision addresses all concerns raised, and there appears to be ample support for the proposal by the community.

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 6.5.9.1 is not changing, but is included here for completeness;

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.

Replace section 6.5.9.2 and 6.5.9.3 with the following;

6.5.9.2. 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.

6.5.9.3. 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.

Comments:

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.
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.

##########

ARIN STAFF & LEGAL ASSESSMENT

Draft Policy ARIN-2017-08

Amend Community Networks

https://arin.net/policy/proposals/2017_8.html

Date of Assessment: 6 February 2018

Summary (Staff Understanding)

Draft Policy 2017-8 provides a new definition for Community Networks. This policy allows Community Networks to receive an allocation size of /40 of IPv6 address resources but limits the holder to only performing further reassignments and specifically does not allow reallocations.

Comments

A. ARIN Staff Comments

* The new definition NRPM section 2.11 Community Network is clear and easily understood.

* Section 6.5.9 confirms that Community Networks, due to their nature, may be approved for an allocation size of /40. They may choose to qualify under section 6.5.2 if they desire and would then be considered a regular LIR. This is clear.

* Section 6.5.9.1 is unchanged.

* Section 6.5.9.2 limits the size of allocation to only a /40 under this policy. This is clear.

* Section 6.5.9.3 allows Community Networks receiving a /40 under this section to only making reassignments to end-users in accordance with applicable policies. It further restricts a Community Network receiving an allocation under this policy from making reallocations from this allocation. It is clear that any Community Network that receives a /40 allocation under this section is only allowed to reassign this space, they cannot reallocate it.

* This policy could be implemented as written.

B. ARIN General Counsel – Legal Assessment

* Presents no material legal issues

Resource Impact

Implementation of this policy would have minimal resource impact. It is estimated that implementation could occur within 3 months after ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees. The following would be needed in order to implement:

* Updated guidelines and internal procedures

* Staff training

* Someengineering work will be required

Proposal/Draft Policy Text Assessed

Draft Policy 2017-8: Amend Community Networks

Version Date: 24 January 2018

Problem Statement:

Policy statement:

Replace section 2.11 with the following;

2.11 Community Network

Rename section 6.5.9 and revise the last sentence as follows;

6.5.9. Community Network Allocations

Community networks may also qualify under section 6.5.2 as a regular LIR.

Section 6.5.9.1 is not changing, but is included here for completeness;

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.

Replace section 6.5.9.2 and 6.5.9.3 with the following;

6.5.9.2. Allocation Size

6.5.9.3. Reassignments by Community Networks

Comments:

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.

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.

##########

Earlier Version

##########

Version Date: 24 January 2018

Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks

Problem Statement:

Policy statement:

Replace section 2.11 with the following;

2.11 Community Network

Rename section 6.5.9 and revise the last sentence as follows;

6.5.9. Community Network Allocations

Community networks may also qualify under section 6.5.2 as a regular LIR.

Section 6.5.9.1 is not changing, but is included here for completeness;

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.

Replace section 6.5.9.2 and 6.5.9.3 with the following;

6.5.9.2. Allocation Size

6.5.9.3. Reassignments by Community Networks

Comments:

Timetable for implementation : Immediate

Anything Else:

Also, the recommended size for reassignment is /48, to even the smallest end-users, and therefore a /40 only provides 256 such reassignments.

##########

Earlier Version

##########

Version Date: 24 August 2017

Problem Statement:

The Community Networks section of the NRPM has not been used 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 was 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.

**Policy statement: **

CURRENT NRPM TEXT:

“2.11. Community Network

A community network is any network organized and operated by a volunteer group operating as or under the fiscal support of a nonprofit organization or university for the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity to the residents of their local service area. To be treated as a community network under ARIN policy, the applicant must certify to ARIN that the community network staff is 100% volunteers.”

NEW NRPM TEXT:

“2.11 Community Network

A community network is a network organized and operated by a volunteer group, not-for-profit, non-profit, charitable organization, or educational institution for the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity, or other Information Technology services to persons or entities within their community. Critical functions may be handled by paid staff, but volunteers play a large role in offering services available through community networks.”

Comments:

Timetable for implementation: Immediate

##########

Earlier Version

##########

Version Date: 22 August 2017

**Problem Statement: **

Policy statement:

** ** CURRENT NRPM TEXT:

“2.11. Community Network

NEW NRPM TEXT:

“2.11 Community Network

A community network is a network organized and operated by a volunteer group, not-for-profit, non-profit, charitable organization, or post-secondary institution for the purpose of providing free or low-cost connectivity to residents in their service area. Critical functions may be handled by paid staff, but volunteers play a large role in offering services available through community networks.”

Comments:

Timetable for implementation : Immediate