Personenprofil

Person

Jordi Palet Martinez

Das BTW-Verzeichnis bündelt öffentliche Datensätze zu Jordi Palet Martinez.

Die verfügbaren Daten umfassen Rollen: author (The IPv6 Company).

Zuletzt beobachtet 2026-09-28

Rollen: author (The IPv6 Company)

Konfidenz

Öffentliche Rolle: Die zitierten öffentlichen Quellen nennen Jordi Palet Martinez als Person im Zusammenhang mit Entscheidungen, Verfahren, Governance oder Betrieb der Internet-Infrastruktur; aktuelle Funktion und Zugehörigkeit müssen weiterhin geprüft werden.
Informationstyp: Die dokumentierte öffentliche Rolle, Entscheidungen oder rechtliche Beteiligung von Jordi Palet Martinez können Netzinvestitionen, Marktzugang, Infrastrukturpolitik oder Verantwortungsgrenzen beeinflussen; dieses Dossier trennt zitierte Nachweise von der Prüfung der aktuellen Funktion.

Zugehörige Details

Jordi Palet Martinez
Authors Jordi Palet Martínez Anupam Agrawal
public people profile
Jordi Palet Martinez
Author Jordi Palet Martinez [The IPv6 Company]
public people profile
Jordi Palet Martinez
Jordi Palet Martinez [Consulintel]
public people profile

Zuletzt aktualisiert: 2026-09-28

Rollen

Role:author (The IPv6 Company)Noch nicht bewertetHistorisch

Role:author (Consulintel)Noch nicht bewertetHistorisch

Quellenbelegte Fakten

Beteiligung an RIR-Richtlinien

4Beteiligte RIRs

71Beteiligte Richtlinien

141Richtliniennachrichten insgesamt

11.07.2006Erste Beteiligung

21.01.2022Letzte Beteiligung

afpol-v60604Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-OrganizationsUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
The author acknowledges that the proposal copied text from his RIPE draft and says to replace RIPE NCC with AFRINIC. That is a specific clarification of intended regional applicability, not an explicit vote on all provisions and not evidence of a changed position over time.
Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author acknowledges that the proposal copied text from his RIPE draft and says to replace RIPE NCC with AFRINIC. That is a specific clarification of intended regional applicability, not an explicit vote on all provisions and not evidence of a changed position over time.
Bedingungen: The clarification does not by itself verify that the published draft was amended or adopted.
11.07.2006
Is a typo, replace RIPE NCC with AfriNIC and you're done.
11.07.2006
This happened in the policy because the text was taken from my proposal to RIPE NCC and we didn't reviewed accurately all the text.
Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations · IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites | AFPUB-2007-v6-001
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · Correcting the region named in a 2006 eligibility clause and arguing for justified organizational eligibility in a distinct 2007 proposal are compatible but not directly comparable acts. The source record does not support either a contradiction claim or a strong longitudinal-consistency claim across the two proposals.
Bedingungen: The proposals have separate source identities and must not be merged solely because both concern IPv6 PI. · No position is inferred from text quoted from another author.
11.07.2006
Is a typo, replace RIPE NCC with AfriNIC and you're done.
19.03.2007
In principle our policies are not made for individuals accessing those resources, unless clearly justified (and in this case I think a good justification is to be an organization).
AFPUB-2007-V6-001IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites | AFPUB-2007-v6-001Unterstützung mit Änderungen · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
The author treats organizational use as a good justification for direct resources and warns that widespread individual assignments could impose routing costs even when address space itself is sufficient. The express qualification for justified cases prevents reading this as an absolute ban on every individual assignment. One message cannot establish whether that preference persisted or changed.
IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites | AFPUB-2007-v6-001
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author treats organizational use as a good justification for direct resources and warns that widespread individual assignments could impose routing costs even when address space itself is sufficient. The express qualification for justified cases prevents reading this as an absolute ban on every individual assignment. One message cannot establish whether that preference persisted or changed.
Bedingungen: The population and router-cost figures are illustrative assertions by the author, not verified measurements. · This concerns IPv6 PI assignment eligibility, not a stance on the separately documented AFRINIC policy-development-process proposal. · The earlier July 2006 clarification is now linked to the separately recovered afpol-v60604 proposal; it is not an earlier version of this verified policy corpus.
19.03.2007
In principle our policies are not made for individuals accessing those resources, unless clearly justified (and in this case I think a good justification is to be an organization).
19.03.2007
Is not only about the addressing space, which probably could perfectly cope with that for 100% of the world population if using /48, but what about the routing slots ?
19.03.2007
We need a balance here.
AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT07AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT07Unbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
AFPUB-2026-GEN-002-DRAFT02Policy Compliance DashboardUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
AFPUB-2026-GEN-003-DRAFT01PPM DatesUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
AFPUB-2026-IPv4-001-DRAFT02IPv4 Soft LandingUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT02Amendment of UtilisationUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT03IPv6 in Soft LandingUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-121Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policyUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-122Updating “Subsequent IPv6 allocation” policyUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-124Clarification on Sub-AssignmentsUnbekannt · 9 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-125Validation of “abuse-mailbox” and other IRT emailsUnbekannt · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-126PDP UpdateUnbekannt · 6 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-128Multihoming not required for ASNUnbekannt · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-130Modification of transfer policiesUnbekannt · 8 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-131Editorial changes in IPv6 PolicyUnbekannt · 5 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-133Clarification on Sub-AssignmentsUnbekannt · 9 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-134PDP UpdateUnbekannt · 6 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-135DocumentationUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-139SOR not requiredUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-140Update End-Site DefinitionUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-143ASN to CustomerUnbekannt · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-148Leasing of Resources is not AcceptableUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-154Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPsUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
prop-157Temporary IPv4 TransfersUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
unnumbered-experimental-allocations-no-ipv4-reservation-2021Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4Unbekannt · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
Palet fordert, die umstrittene Frage der Zuweisung für experimentelle Zwecke in den breiteren Kreis des Policy SIG einzubringen. Er behauptet weder, dass bereits Konsens besteht, noch äußert er ein abschließendes Votum zur Zuweisungsregel. Dieser einzelne Verfahrensbeitrag belegt keinen Positionswechsel.
Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · Palet fordert, die umstrittene Frage der Zuweisung für experimentelle Zwecke in den breiteren Kreis des Policy SIG einzubringen. Er behauptet weder, dass bereits Konsens besteht, noch äußert er ein abschließendes Votum zur Zuweisungsregel. Dieser einzelne Verfahrensbeitrag belegt keinen Positionswechsel.
Bedingungen: Die Aufforderung, Konsens festzustellen, ist von einem Nachweis zu unterscheiden, dass Konsens erreicht wurde.
11.01.2022
it is neccesary to have the discussion in a broader community, the Policy SIG.
Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4 · Recovery of unused historical resources
Bewertung: Konsistent · Eine breitere Beratung in der Community zu einem Vorschlag und fachliche Beiträge des Sekretariats zu einem anderen sind vereinbare Wege, unterschiedliche Lücken in der Entscheidungsgrundlage zu schließen. Keine der Nachrichten verleiht dem Sekretariat die Befugnis, den Konsens der Community zu ersetzen. Der Vergleich stützt die Vereinbarkeit der Verfahren, nicht ein gleichlautendes inhaltliches Votum zu beiden Richtlinien.
unnumbered-recovery-unused-historical-resources-2021Recovery of unused historical resourcesUnbekannt · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
Zur Rückgewinnung historischer Nummernressourcen bittet Palet das Sekretariat um eine Stellungnahme, insbesondere zu rechtlichen Fragen. Die Bitte um diese Informationen lässt die inhaltliche Entscheidung über die Rückgewinnung offen; sie ist keine Zustimmung zu einer bestimmten Rechtsauslegung.
Recovery of unused historical resources
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · Zur Rückgewinnung historischer Nummernressourcen bittet Palet das Sekretariat um eine Stellungnahme, insbesondere zu rechtlichen Fragen. Die Bitte um diese Informationen lässt die inhaltliche Entscheidung über die Rückgewinnung offen; sie ist keine Zustimmung zu einer bestimmten Rechtsauslegung.
Bedingungen: Die vorliegenden Unterlagen enthalten weder eine spätere Antwort noch eine ausdrücklich abschließende Präferenz zur Richtlinie.
11.01.2022
especially the legal aspects. May be in this case, is not just the chairs but the secretariat who should provide some inputs.
Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4 · Recovery of unused historical resources
Bewertung: Konsistent · Eine breitere Beratung in der Community zu einem Vorschlag und fachliche Beiträge des Sekretariats zu einem anderen sind vereinbare Wege, unterschiedliche Lücken in der Entscheidungsgrundlage zu schließen. Keine der Nachrichten verleiht dem Sekretariat die Befugnis, den Konsens der Community zu ersetzen. Der Vergleich stützt die Vereinbarkeit der Verfahren, nicht ein gleichlautendes inhaltliches Votum zu beiden Richtlinien.
LAC-2016-4Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end usersUnterstützung mit Änderungen · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
The author accepts clearer old-and-new text and a stronger rationale while deliberately separating the allocation-size question from the two changes being proposed. This one reply shows willingness to refine the proposal, but supplies no sequence from which to assess a reversal or durable consistency.
Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author accepts clearer old-and-new text and a stronger rationale while deliberately separating the allocation-size question from the two changes being proposed. This one reply shows willingness to refine the proposal, but supplies no sequence from which to assess a reversal or durable consistency.
Bedingungen: Support for this limited change does not endorse a separate size change or every later draft.
10.03.2016
Mi idea en esta propuesta es SOLO tocar los dos puntos indicados.
LAC-2016-5Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocationsUnterstützung · 29 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent
From March 2016 through May 2017 the author seeks an aggregated, realistic IPv6 plan for government and other nontraditional networks. His preferred mechanism evolves: he first argues for differentiated non-ISP treatment, offers an alternative at the community's request, and finally abandons this proposal because the common mechanism serves the same objective with less complexity. The withdrawal is explained rather than an unexplained rejection of the objective.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Bewertung: Konsistent · From March 2016 through May 2017 the author seeks an aggregated, realistic IPv6 plan for government and other nontraditional networks. His preferred mechanism evolves: he first argues for differentiated non-ISP treatment, offers an alternative at the community's request, and finally abandons this proposal because the common mechanism serves the same objective with less complexity. The withdrawal is explained rather than an unexplained rejection of the objective.
Bedingungen: The initial willingness to withdraw depended on staff confirming that the existing rule already permitted the case; it was not an actual March withdrawal. · The later report of community consensus is not independent evidence of final ratification or implementation. · Claims about government allocations and regional experience are the author's examples and assertions.
18.03.2016
Y creo que no es conveniente tener tantas pol?ticas como ?casos?.
17.08.2016
Mi propuesta pretende aclarar esta situacion, con una categoria nueva diferente de ISP, aunque es muy similar a un ISP.
24.05.2017
que evitamos con un solo mecanismo para justificar los recursos
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Bewertung: Konsistent · The November correction changes the stated horizon from the organization's life expectancy to the allocation's expected longevity. The author acknowledges an overlooked drafting error and explains why the latter better bounds the addressing plan. This is a real correction with an explanation, not evidence that every earlier version already said the same thing.
LAC-2016-7Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocationsUnterstützung · 6 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent
The author presents the common ISP/LIR rule as an explicit alternative, explains its longer-horizon planning benefit, and later favors it over separate categories because it achieves the shared aim more simply. Offering two mutually exclusive community choices is not support for adopting conflicting rules simultaneously.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Bewertung: Konsistent · The author presents the common ISP/LIR rule as an explicit alternative, explains its longer-horizon planning benefit, and later favors it over separate categories because it achieves the shared aim more simply. Offering two mutually exclusive community choices is not support for adopting conflicting rules simultaneously.
Bedingungen: This entails a change from preserving the commercial-ISP time limit to accepting a common mechanism; the design preference did evolve. · The source describes community consensus, not proof of all subsequent implementation steps.
03.10.2016
Mi idea es ofrecer AMBAS alternativas para que la comunidad decida.
03.10.2016
Por supuesto que la idea no es que se aprueben las dos, sino una u otra.
24.05.2017
v?lido para ambos casos.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Bewertung: Konsistent · The separate-category and common-rule proposals are competing mechanisms for the same planning objective. The author expressly presents them as alternatives, then explains abandoning the more complex category approach after the common rule received community support. The record documents a reasoned change in preferred mechanism rather than simultaneous contradictory commitments.
LAC-2017-1Rectifying the size of initial allocationsUnterstützung · 4 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent
The sequence consistently supports a one-time correction of an inadequate initial IPv6 allocation to avoid renumbering. It preserves the ordinary subsequent-allocation procedure, acknowledges that contiguous space may not remain available, and leaves end-user inclusion open if relevant cases are presented. Encouraging discussion is separate from this substantive advocacy.
Rectifying the size of initial allocations
Bewertung: Konsistent · The sequence consistently supports a one-time correction of an inadequate initial IPv6 allocation to avoid renumbering. It preserves the ordinary subsequent-allocation procedure, acknowledges that contiguous space may not remain available, and leaves end-user inclusion open if relevant cases are presented. Encouraging discussion is separate from this substantive advocacy.
Bedingungen: The residential /64 remark is a reductio, not a recommendation to reduce customer assignments. · The /33 example and worldwide adoption fraction are not independently established technical or statistical evidence. · Future contiguous allocations are not guaranteed.
02.03.2017
No se trata de evitar que haya ?nuevas asignaciones? en el futuro, pero si dar la oportunidad de ?corregir? la primera por una sola vez.
05.03.2017
ser?a muy sencillo actualizar la propuesta para incluir ese caso.
07.03.2017
ahora pague por ello el cliente.
Rectifying the size of initial allocations · MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS
Bewertung: Konsistent · The initial-correction discussion explicitly leaves end-user inclusion open if cases are raised. The later welcome for an end-user correction mechanism is compatible with that openness and with the repeated concern about avoidable renumbering; it is not a reversal from categorical exclusion of end users.
LAC-2017-7Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.Alternativvorschlag · 3 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent
The author repeats a preference for 30 calendar days, finds discretionary chair-adjusted intervals too subjective, and then proposes a broader list-based consensus process. The broader process discussion does not endorse the specific 20-day option or retract the stated 30-day preference within this exchange.
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.
Bewertung: Konsistent · The author repeats a preference for 30 calendar days, finds discretionary chair-adjusted intervals too subjective, and then proposes a broader list-based consensus process. The broader process discussion does not endorse the specific 20-day option or retract the stated 30-day preference within this exchange.
Bedingungen: The comparative timing list is supplied by another participant. · The claimed benefits of avoiding meeting delays are advocacy, not measured outcomes.
14.06.2017
creo que 30 d?as naturales ser?a suficiente y siempre m?s f?cil de contar.
14.06.2017
Me refuerza en mi punto de vista de 30 d?as.
14.06.2017
la decisi?n del consenso (igual que en IETF) se toma en la lista, no en el meeting
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. · Simplification of the PDP
Bewertung: Konsistent · The 2017 preference for list-based consensus carries into the later PDP redesign and its equal-participation rationale. Details do change: the earlier preference is 30 calendar days, while the later outline gives a four-week last call. The later emphasis on inclusion rather than speed narrows the stated priority without negating the earlier observation that meetings can delay a decision.
LAC-2017-8MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERSAlternativvorschlag · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
The single contribution welcomes correction of an end user's initial allocation while proposing clearer language about contiguous expansion, unavailable adjacent space, and the choice to renumber earlier. It establishes a conditional design preference, not longitudinal consistency or endorsement of every provision.
MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The single contribution welcomes correction of an end user's initial allocation while proposing clearer language about contiguous expansion, unavailable adjacent space, and the choice to renumber earlier. It establishes a conditional design preference, not longitudinal consistency or endorsement of every provision.
Bedingungen: The suggested wording is a proposal, not evidence that it was incorporated into an adopted text.
03.08.2017
Me parece buena idea la propuesta, sin embargo, tengo una duda.
03.08.2017
que si lo desea renumere ahora en lugar de luego
Rectifying the size of initial allocations · MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS
Bewertung: Konsistent · The initial-correction discussion explicitly leaves end-user inclusion open if cases are raised. The later welcome for an end-user correction mechanism is compatible with that openness and with the repeated concern about avoidable renumbering; it is not a reversal from categorical exclusion of end users.
Bedingungen: The two proposals address different recipient classes. · The emails do not independently establish the frequency of end-user cases.
LAC-2017-9Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6Unterstützung · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
The author advocates aligning subsequent IPv6 allocation criteria with the revised initial-allocation criteria so earlier recipients are not disadvantaged. Only one contribution is supplied, so persistence or reversal within this proposal cannot be assessed.
Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author advocates aligning subsequent IPv6 allocation criteria with the revised initial-allocation criteria so earlier recipients are not disadvantaged. Only one contribution is supplied, so persistence or reversal within this proposal cannot be assessed.
Bedingungen: The quoted announcement distinguishes consensus from pending board ratification; the author's shorthand about approval does not prove implementation.
07.08.2017
Mi propuesta simplemente incorpora *el mismo* texto que se aprob? para las distribuciones iniciales en las distribuciones subsiguientes
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6
Bewertung: Konsistent · Support for a common initial-allocation rule is followed by advocacy of matching subsequent-allocation criteria, expressly to avoid disadvantaging earlier recipients. These are complementary positions on the same planning issue.
Bedingungen: The comparison concerns the author's rationale, not proof of ratification or deployment.
24.05.2017
v?lido para ambos casos.
07.08.2017
dejar?a en desventaja a quien haya obtenido una distribuci?n inicial *antes* de la reciente aprobaci?n del cambio.
LAC-2018-10Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option)Unterstützung · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
This contribution supports a substantive rather than numerical understanding of consensus and associates that objective with the author's PDP proposal. It does not reproduce all the process provisions or provide a time series of positions on this proposal.
Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option)
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · This contribution supports a substantive rather than numerical understanding of consensus and associates that objective with the author's PDP proposal. It does not reproduce all the process provisions or provide a time series of positions on this proposal.
Bedingungen: The definition quoted from the PDP is attributed material; the author's explicit endorsement is the evidence of his position. · No stance on an unrelated later proposal follows from the discussion.
25.07.2018
para evitar que se entienda como "mas votos" a favor o "en contra", cuando en realidad quiere decir que no haya objeciones que no sean respondidas.
Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option) · Simplification of the PDP
Bewertung: Konsistent · The later explanation that consensus is not a count of votes matches the earlier PDP reform argument for evaluating substantive objections and including list participants. No reversal of that conception of consensus is shown.
Bedingungen: Endorsement of this principle does not establish agreement with every procedural provision.
25.07.2018
para evitar que se entienda como "mas votos" a favor o "en contra"
14.03.2018
LAC-2018-11Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end usersUnterstützung · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
The author supports removing the IPv4 end-user multihoming requirement and explains that this component was split from a combined proposal after feedback. This single statement cannot show whether the position persisted or changed later.
Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end users
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author supports removing the IPv4 end-user multihoming requirement and explains that this component was split from a combined proposal after feedback. This single statement cannot show whether the position persisted or changed later.
Bedingungen: The alignment with IPv6 is his stated rationale. · Neither the split nor the request for feedback establishes consensus on this component.
13.08.2018
La LAC-2018-11, simplemente elimina el requisito de multihoming para IPv4 para ser usuario final
Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end users · Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users
Bewertung: Konsistent · The author explains dividing the combined end-user proposal into transfer and multihoming components after community feedback. Supporting both as separate proposals is coherent; it does not imply either had been adopted.
Bedingungen: This is an explicitly described change in proposal structure, not an inferred change from a shared subject line.
13.08.2018
afrontara cada problema con una propuesta especifica y as? lo hice ese mismo d?a.
LAC-2018-12Minor revision to the PDPUnterstützung mit Änderungen · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
The author regards an explicit restart clause as redundant but accepts wording that restarts the eight-week discussion period in every case. Calling it a clarification while accepting it is not opposition, but one reply cannot establish consistency across subsequent revisions.
Minor revision to the PDP
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author regards an explicit restart clause as redundant but accepts wording that restarts the eight-week discussion period in every case. Calling it a clarification while accepting it is not opposition, but one reply cannot establish consistency across subsequent revisions.
Bedingungen: A proposed revision or offered new version is not proof of adoption. · The rule being discussed is a failed-consensus restart, not the length of last call.
14.09.2018
Luego, bajo mi punto de vista, es *redundante* poner que se reinician los plazos.
14.09.2018
En cualquier caso, se reiniciar?a el plazo de debate de 8 semanas.
LAC-2018-13Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for the Policy ListUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2018-14Inter-RIR Transfer PolicyUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2018-4Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policyUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
The author supplies a comparison link and explains its colors to facilitate review. The message contains neither the comparison itself nor a substantive sequence of positions, so it cannot support a finding about consistency of the proposed IPv6 corrections.
Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author supplies a comparison link and explains its colors to facilitate review. The message contains neither the comparison itself nor a substantive sequence of positions, so it cannot support a finding about consistency of the proposed IPv6 corrections.
Bedingungen: Authorship and assistance with presentation are not endorsement of every unseen change.
28.02.2018
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo), y la de la derecha (color verde), como quedar?a con los cambios que propongo.
Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy · Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual
Bewertung: Konsistent · Providing a policy diff and later favoring side-by-side comparisons show a compatible preference for making textual changes easier to inspect. That narrow presentation preference supplies no evidence of consistency on the substantive IPv6 or resource-recovery provisions.
Bedingungen: Only the presentation practice is compared here.
28.02.2018
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo)
12.07.2019
Yo desde luego votar?a por un sistema que muestre ?lado a lado? en la web
LAC-2018-5Registration and validation of abuse contactUnterstützung mit Änderungen · 10 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent
Across the discussion the author continues to seek registered, usable abuse contacts and periodic validation. He accepts clarification of validation triggers, discusses longer intervals and grace periods, and considers splitting disputed components. By September he favors stating the validation objective while leaving the operational procedure to LACNIC. Those are substantive refinements around a persistent objective.
Registration and validation of abuse contact
Bewertung: Konsistent · Across the discussion the author continues to seek registered, usable abuse contacts and periodic validation. He accepts clarification of validation triggers, discusses longer intervals and grace periods, and considers splitting disputed components. By September he favors stating the validation objective while leaving the operational procedure to LACNIC. Those are substantive refinements around a persistent objective.
Bedingungen: The final interval and precise consequences of failed validation are not settled by these replies. · General agreement with a suggested revision does not adopt every sanction in the quoted reply. · Predictions of court victories and civil liability remain the author's historical claims, not verified legal conclusions.
08.03.2018
Totalmente de acuerdo en lo que propones del punto 12.4
13.08.2018
Que se verifican autom?ticamente cada cierto tiempo, con un proceso automatizado desde LACNIC
26.09.2018
es mejor que el procedimiento lo defina LACNIC.
Registration and validation of abuse contact
Bewertung: Konsistent · The objection to automated abuse contacts concerns systems that ignore email and force victims into incompatible forms. The author expressly supports automatic initial reports and automatic or semi-automatic processing that responds. Read together, the broad phrase against automation is qualified by this functional distinction, not a ban on all automation.
LAC-2018-6Simplification of the PDPUnterstützung mit Änderungen · 7 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent
The author consistently prioritizes participation in consensus by the whole community. His initial list-only design would remove the expedited track, but he subsequently offers to retain forum presentation and the expedited process, or combine list and forum, if remote participants have equal standing. This is a conditional compromise, not abandonment of the objective.
Simplification of the PDP
Bewertung: Konsistent · The author consistently prioritizes participation in consensus by the whole community. His initial list-only design would remove the expedited track, but he subsequently offers to retain forum presentation and the expedited process, or combine list and forum, if remote participants have equal standing. This is a conditional compromise, not abandonment of the objective.
Bedingungen: The offered changes are not evidence that a revised text was actually published or approved. · Replacing the word discriminatory with exclusionary softens the description without removing the stated objection. · The illustrative participation percentages and accounts of prior forums are not independently verified measurements.
14.03.2018
El objetivo es que el consenso se alcance en la lista, y no en el foro
14.03.2018
y entonces mantener el proceso expeditivo
15.03.2018
hacer que el consenso sea de lista+foro en lugar de solo lista o solo foro
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. · Simplification of the PDP
Bewertung: Konsistent · The 2017 preference for list-based consensus carries into the later PDP redesign and its equal-participation rationale. Details do change: the earlier preference is 30 calendar days, while the later outline gives a four-week last call. The later emphasis on inclusion rather than speed narrows the stated priority without negating the earlier observation that meetings can delay a decision.
LAC-2018-7Clarifications of Sub-AssignmentsUnterstützung · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
The author seeks an exception for temporary addressing of guests, employees or students while retaining the distinction from permanent connectivity service. He explicitly asks whether to cap that exception at a /64 or leave size open. Presenting these alternatives does not choose either one, and there is no later position here to compare.
Clarifications of Sub-Assignments
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author seeks an exception for temporary addressing of guests, employees or students while retaining the distinction from permanent connectivity service. He explicitly asks whether to cap that exception at a /64 or leave size open. Presenting these alternatives does not choose either one, and there is no later position here to compare.
Bedingungen: Other regions are contextual references, not evidence that a particular LACNIC alternative was adopted.
13.08.2018
La diferencia es limitar esto a un m?ximo de un /64, o dejarlo abierto.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Clarifications of Sub-Assignments
Bewertung: Konsistent · The earlier end-user/LIR distinction concerns assignment to separate institutions in a national network. The later sub-assignment clarification explicitly distinguishes temporary guest or employee connectivity from permanent service. These scopes can coexist; the later temporary-use exception does not establish that permanent distribution to other organizations was reclassified as end-user use.
Bedingungen: The imprecise university wording in the earlier example remains an uncertainty, not a basis for a categorical identity rule. · The later message leaves the /64 size alternative undecided.
LAC-2018-8Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End UsersUnterstützung · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent
The May contribution defends avoiding disruptive end-user renumbering; the August explanation preserves that objective while describing the simplified transfer component after the multihoming question was separated. The split changes the packaging, not the stated purpose of enabling the existing user to keep its addressing.
Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users
Bewertung: Konsistent · The May contribution defends avoiding disruptive end-user renumbering; the August explanation preserves that objective while describing the simplified transfer component after the multihoming question was separated. The split changes the packaging, not the stated purpose of enabling the existing user to keep its addressing.
Bedingungen: The quoted participant's uncertainty is not the author's own neutral position. · An ISP proposal's reported consensus does not establish consensus for the end-user proposal.
22.05.2018
un end-user puede tener requisitos que le impiden renumerar
13.08.2018
un ISP "ceda" con un sistema simplificado de transferencias, el direccionamiento al usuario final que lo usa.
Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users · Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs
Bewertung: Konsistent · Both the ISP and end-user discussions pursue retention of existing addressing through an agreed transfer to avoid renumbering. The author separates the recipient classes while using the same operational rationale; support in one discussion is not evidence of consensus in the other.
Bedingungen: The effect on routing remains a debated claim.
22.05.2018
LAC-2018-9Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPsUnterstützung mit Änderungen · 7 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent
The author repeatedly defends voluntary transfer of the same addressing to avoid renumbering and argues that the routing and cost consequences are comparable to ordinary transfers. The later offer to replace ceder with transferir makes his intended mechanism explicit rather than reversing it.
Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs
Bewertung: Konsistent · The author repeatedly defends voluntary transfer of the same addressing to avoid renumbering and argues that the routing and cost consequences are comparable to ordinary transfers. The later offer to replace ceder with transferir makes his intended mechanism explicit rather than reversing it.
Bedingungen: His routing-equivalence argument is contested advocacy, not an independently measured network outcome. · The half-joking routing-table remark is not a policy commitment; the rhetorical question about abolishing transfers is not a repeal proposal. · The participating organizations must agree and an authorized representative must approve; no unilateral right is asserted.
03.04.2018
tiene que haber acuerdo entre ambas partes.
03.05.2018
pero resuelve el problema de evitar la renumeraci?n.
30.05.2018
poner transferir en lugar de ceder.
Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users · Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs
Bewertung: Konsistent · Both the ISP and end-user discussions pursue retention of existing addressing through an agreed transfer to avoid renumbering. The author separates the recipient classes while using the same operational rationale; support in one discussion is not evidence of consensus in the other.
LAC-2019-2IPv4 Mergers, Acquisitions, Reorganizations and RelocationsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2019-3IPv6 Mergers, Acquisitions, Reorganizations and RelocationsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2019-4ASN Mergers, Acquisitions, Reorganizations and RelocationsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2019-5Resource Hijacking is a Policy ViolationUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2019-6Resources Are Assigned in a Unique and Exclusive CapacityUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2019-7PDP Chair Election ProcedureUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
The author acknowledges missing a response deadline and agrees that further versions may be needed. This procedural exchange does not establish support for every chair-election provision, a substantive reversal, or a declaration of consensus.
PDP Chair Election Procedure
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author acknowledges missing a response deadline and agrees that further versions may be needed. This procedural exchange does not establish support for every chair-election provision, a substantive reversal, or a declaration of consensus.
Bedingungen: A preference for immediate replies is not a position on each election rule. · A shared email subject does not by itself attribute a stance on another proposal.
24.06.2019
Mi respuesta no negaba una versi?n 2 o 3 o las que hagan falta
LAC-2019-9Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the ManualUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
The author favors a side-by-side comparison tool, downloadable text and PDF, and room for exceptional formats. This is agreement about how to discuss a proposal, not evidence of support or opposition to its resource-recovery provisions or a later policy outcome.
Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author favors a side-by-side comparison tool, downloadable text and PDF, and room for exceptional formats. This is agreement about how to discuss a proposal, not evidence of support or opposition to its resource-recovery provisions or a later policy outcome.
Bedingungen: No substantive recovery-rule consistency judgment can be inferred from agreement with the tooling suggestion.
12.07.2019
Yo desde luego votar?a por un sistema que muestre ?lado a lado? en la web
Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy · Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual
Bewertung: Konsistent · Providing a policy diff and later favoring side-by-side comparisons show a compatible preference for making textual changes easier to inspect. That narrow presentation preference supplies no evidence of consistency on the substantive IPv6 or resource-recovery provisions.
Bedingungen: Only the presentation practice is compared here.
28.02.2018
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo)
12.07.2019
LAC-2020-3Impact Analysis Is MandatoryUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2020-4Adjustment to the Functions of the Board of DirectorsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2020-6Miscellaneous Modifications to the PDPUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2021-2Non-Competition Between ProposalsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2021-3PDP Chair ElectionUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2021-4Permission to Transfer and Non-Return of ResourcesUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2021-5Update End-User and End-Site DefinitionsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2022-2Clarification: The lease of resources is not allowed under the policies in forceUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2022-4PDP Chair ElectionsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2023-1Clarify Definition of ConsensusUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2023-7Temporary TransfersUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2024-1Introducing Proposals to the PDPUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2025-1Distribution of Resources to Natural PersonsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
LAC-2025-4Priority on the IPv4 Waiting List for Those Who Have Already Deployed IPv6Unbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
2007-08Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 ResourcesUnbekannt · 4 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
2011-04Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial AllocationUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
2018-02Assignment Clarification in IPv6 PolicyUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
2018-04PDP ClarificationUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
2024-02IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 and extension to /28Unbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

Beteiligung an RIR-Richtlinien

4Beteiligte RIRs

71Beteiligte Richtlinien

141Richtliniennachrichten insgesamt

11.07.2006Erste Beteiligung

21.01.2022Letzte Beteiligung

afpol-v60604Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-OrganizationsUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.

The author acknowledges that the proposal copied text from his RIPE draft and says to replace RIPE NCC with AFRINIC. That is a specific clarification of intended regional applicability, not an explicit vote on all provisions and not evidence of a changed position over time.

Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author acknowledges that the proposal copied text from his RIPE draft and says to replace RIPE NCC with AFRINIC. That is a specific clarification of intended regional applicability, not an explicit vote on all provisions and not evidence of a changed position over time.

Bedingungen: The clarification does not by itself verify that the published draft was amended or adopted.

11.07.2006
Is a typo, replace RIPE NCC with AfriNIC and you're done.

11.07.2006
This happened in the policy because the text was taken from my proposal to RIPE NCC and we didn't reviewed accurately all the text.

Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations · IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites | AFPUB-2007-v6-001

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · Correcting the region named in a 2006 eligibility clause and arguing for justified organizational eligibility in a distinct 2007 proposal are compatible but not directly comparable acts. The source record does not support either a contradiction claim or a strong longitudinal-consistency claim across the two proposals.

Bedingungen: The proposals have separate source identities and must not be merged solely because both concern IPv6 PI. · No position is inferred from text quoted from another author.

11.07.2006
Is a typo, replace RIPE NCC with AfriNIC and you're done.

19.03.2007
In principle our policies are not made for individuals accessing those resources, unless clearly justified (and in this case I think a good justification is to be an organization).

AFPUB-2007-V6-001IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites | AFPUB-2007-v6-001Unterstützung mit Änderungen · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.

The author treats organizational use as a good justification for direct resources and warns that widespread individual assignments could impose routing costs even when address space itself is sufficient. The express qualification for justified cases prevents reading this as an absolute ban on every individual assignment. One message cannot establish whether that preference persisted or changed.

IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites | AFPUB-2007-v6-001

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author treats organizational use as a good justification for direct resources and warns that widespread individual assignments could impose routing costs even when address space itself is sufficient. The express qualification for justified cases prevents reading this as an absolute ban on every individual assignment. One message cannot establish whether that preference persisted or changed.

Bedingungen: The population and router-cost figures are illustrative assertions by the author, not verified measurements. · This concerns IPv6 PI assignment eligibility, not a stance on the separately documented AFRINIC policy-development-process proposal. · The earlier July 2006 clarification is now linked to the separately recovered afpol-v60604 proposal; it is not an earlier version of this verified policy corpus.

19.03.2007
In principle our policies are not made for individuals accessing those resources, unless clearly justified (and in this case I think a good justification is to be an organization).

19.03.2007
Is not only about the addressing space, which probably could perfectly cope with that for 100% of the world population if using /48, but what about the routing slots ?

19.03.2007
We need a balance here.

AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT07AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT07Unbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

AFPUB-2026-GEN-002-DRAFT02Policy Compliance DashboardUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

AFPUB-2026-GEN-003-DRAFT01PPM DatesUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

AFPUB-2026-IPv4-001-DRAFT02IPv4 Soft LandingUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT02Amendment of UtilisationUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT03IPv6 in Soft LandingUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-121Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policyUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-122Updating “Subsequent IPv6 allocation” policyUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-124Clarification on Sub-AssignmentsUnbekannt · 9 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-125Validation of “abuse-mailbox” and other IRT emailsUnbekannt · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-126PDP UpdateUnbekannt · 6 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-128Multihoming not required for ASNUnbekannt · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-130Modification of transfer policiesUnbekannt · 8 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-131Editorial changes in IPv6 PolicyUnbekannt · 5 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-133Clarification on Sub-AssignmentsUnbekannt · 9 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-134PDP UpdateUnbekannt · 6 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-135DocumentationUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-139SOR not requiredUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-140Update End-Site DefinitionUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-143ASN to CustomerUnbekannt · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-148Leasing of Resources is not AcceptableUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-154Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPsUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

prop-157Temporary IPv4 TransfersUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

unnumbered-experimental-allocations-no-ipv4-reservation-2021Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4Unbekannt · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.

Palet fordert, die umstrittene Frage der Zuweisung für experimentelle Zwecke in den breiteren Kreis des Policy SIG einzubringen. Er behauptet weder, dass bereits Konsens besteht, noch äußert er ein abschließendes Votum zur Zuweisungsregel. Dieser einzelne Verfahrensbeitrag belegt keinen Positionswechsel.

Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · Palet fordert, die umstrittene Frage der Zuweisung für experimentelle Zwecke in den breiteren Kreis des Policy SIG einzubringen. Er behauptet weder, dass bereits Konsens besteht, noch äußert er ein abschließendes Votum zur Zuweisungsregel. Dieser einzelne Verfahrensbeitrag belegt keinen Positionswechsel.

Bedingungen: Die Aufforderung, Konsens festzustellen, ist von einem Nachweis zu unterscheiden, dass Konsens erreicht wurde.

11.01.2022
it is neccesary to have the discussion in a broader community, the Policy SIG.

Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4 · Recovery of unused historical resources

Bewertung: Konsistent · Eine breitere Beratung in der Community zu einem Vorschlag und fachliche Beiträge des Sekretariats zu einem anderen sind vereinbare Wege, unterschiedliche Lücken in der Entscheidungsgrundlage zu schließen. Keine der Nachrichten verleiht dem Sekretariat die Befugnis, den Konsens der Community zu ersetzen. Der Vergleich stützt die Vereinbarkeit der Verfahren, nicht ein gleichlautendes inhaltliches Votum zu beiden Richtlinien.

unnumbered-recovery-unused-historical-resources-2021Recovery of unused historical resourcesUnbekannt · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.

Zur Rückgewinnung historischer Nummernressourcen bittet Palet das Sekretariat um eine Stellungnahme, insbesondere zu rechtlichen Fragen. Die Bitte um diese Informationen lässt die inhaltliche Entscheidung über die Rückgewinnung offen; sie ist keine Zustimmung zu einer bestimmten Rechtsauslegung.

Recovery of unused historical resources

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · Zur Rückgewinnung historischer Nummernressourcen bittet Palet das Sekretariat um eine Stellungnahme, insbesondere zu rechtlichen Fragen. Die Bitte um diese Informationen lässt die inhaltliche Entscheidung über die Rückgewinnung offen; sie ist keine Zustimmung zu einer bestimmten Rechtsauslegung.

Bedingungen: Die vorliegenden Unterlagen enthalten weder eine spätere Antwort noch eine ausdrücklich abschließende Präferenz zur Richtlinie.

11.01.2022
especially the legal aspects. May be in this case, is not just the chairs but the secretariat who should provide some inputs.

Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4 · Recovery of unused historical resources

LAC-2016-4Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end usersUnterstützung mit Änderungen · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.

The author accepts clearer old-and-new text and a stronger rationale while deliberately separating the allocation-size question from the two changes being proposed. This one reply shows willingness to refine the proposal, but supplies no sequence from which to assess a reversal or durable consistency.

Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author accepts clearer old-and-new text and a stronger rationale while deliberately separating the allocation-size question from the two changes being proposed. This one reply shows willingness to refine the proposal, but supplies no sequence from which to assess a reversal or durable consistency.

Bedingungen: Support for this limited change does not endorse a separate size change or every later draft.

10.03.2016
Mi idea en esta propuesta es SOLO tocar los dos puntos indicados.

LAC-2016-5Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocationsUnterstützung · 29 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent

From March 2016 through May 2017 the author seeks an aggregated, realistic IPv6 plan for government and other nontraditional networks. His preferred mechanism evolves: he first argues for differentiated non-ISP treatment, offers an alternative at the community's request, and finally abandons this proposal because the common mechanism serves the same objective with less complexity. The withdrawal is explained rather than an unexplained rejection of the objective.

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Bewertung: Konsistent · From March 2016 through May 2017 the author seeks an aggregated, realistic IPv6 plan for government and other nontraditional networks. His preferred mechanism evolves: he first argues for differentiated non-ISP treatment, offers an alternative at the community's request, and finally abandons this proposal because the common mechanism serves the same objective with less complexity. The withdrawal is explained rather than an unexplained rejection of the objective.

Bedingungen: The initial willingness to withdraw depended on staff confirming that the existing rule already permitted the case; it was not an actual March withdrawal. · The later report of community consensus is not independent evidence of final ratification or implementation. · Claims about government allocations and regional experience are the author's examples and assertions.

18.03.2016
Y creo que no es conveniente tener tantas pol?ticas como ?casos?.

17.08.2016
Mi propuesta pretende aclarar esta situacion, con una categoria nueva diferente de ISP, aunque es muy similar a un ISP.

24.05.2017
que evitamos con un solo mecanismo para justificar los recursos

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Bewertung: Konsistent · The November correction changes the stated horizon from the organization's life expectancy to the allocation's expected longevity. The author acknowledges an overlooked drafting error and explains why the latter better bounds the addressing plan. This is a real correction with an explanation, not evidence that every earlier version already said the same thing.

LAC-2016-7Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocationsUnterstützung · 6 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent

The author presents the common ISP/LIR rule as an explicit alternative, explains its longer-horizon planning benefit, and later favors it over separate categories because it achieves the shared aim more simply. Offering two mutually exclusive community choices is not support for adopting conflicting rules simultaneously.

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Bewertung: Konsistent · The author presents the common ISP/LIR rule as an explicit alternative, explains its longer-horizon planning benefit, and later favors it over separate categories because it achieves the shared aim more simply. Offering two mutually exclusive community choices is not support for adopting conflicting rules simultaneously.

Bedingungen: This entails a change from preserving the commercial-ISP time limit to accepting a common mechanism; the design preference did evolve. · The source describes community consensus, not proof of all subsequent implementation steps.

03.10.2016
Mi idea es ofrecer AMBAS alternativas para que la comunidad decida.

03.10.2016
Por supuesto que la idea no es que se aprueben las dos, sino una u otra.

24.05.2017
v?lido para ambos casos.

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Bewertung: Konsistent · The separate-category and common-rule proposals are competing mechanisms for the same planning objective. The author expressly presents them as alternatives, then explains abandoning the more complex category approach after the common rule received community support. The record documents a reasoned change in preferred mechanism rather than simultaneous contradictory commitments.

LAC-2017-1Rectifying the size of initial allocationsUnterstützung · 4 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent

The sequence consistently supports a one-time correction of an inadequate initial IPv6 allocation to avoid renumbering. It preserves the ordinary subsequent-allocation procedure, acknowledges that contiguous space may not remain available, and leaves end-user inclusion open if relevant cases are presented. Encouraging discussion is separate from this substantive advocacy.

Rectifying the size of initial allocations

Bewertung: Konsistent · The sequence consistently supports a one-time correction of an inadequate initial IPv6 allocation to avoid renumbering. It preserves the ordinary subsequent-allocation procedure, acknowledges that contiguous space may not remain available, and leaves end-user inclusion open if relevant cases are presented. Encouraging discussion is separate from this substantive advocacy.

Bedingungen: The residential /64 remark is a reductio, not a recommendation to reduce customer assignments. · The /33 example and worldwide adoption fraction are not independently established technical or statistical evidence. · Future contiguous allocations are not guaranteed.

02.03.2017
No se trata de evitar que haya ?nuevas asignaciones? en el futuro, pero si dar la oportunidad de ?corregir? la primera por una sola vez.

05.03.2017
ser?a muy sencillo actualizar la propuesta para incluir ese caso.

07.03.2017
ahora pague por ello el cliente.

Rectifying the size of initial allocations · MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS

Bewertung: Konsistent · The initial-correction discussion explicitly leaves end-user inclusion open if cases are raised. The later welcome for an end-user correction mechanism is compatible with that openness and with the repeated concern about avoidable renumbering; it is not a reversal from categorical exclusion of end users.

LAC-2017-7Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.Alternativvorschlag · 3 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent

The author repeats a preference for 30 calendar days, finds discretionary chair-adjusted intervals too subjective, and then proposes a broader list-based consensus process. The broader process discussion does not endorse the specific 20-day option or retract the stated 30-day preference within this exchange.

Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.

Bewertung: Konsistent · The author repeats a preference for 30 calendar days, finds discretionary chair-adjusted intervals too subjective, and then proposes a broader list-based consensus process. The broader process discussion does not endorse the specific 20-day option or retract the stated 30-day preference within this exchange.

Bedingungen: The comparative timing list is supplied by another participant. · The claimed benefits of avoiding meeting delays are advocacy, not measured outcomes.

14.06.2017
creo que 30 d?as naturales ser?a suficiente y siempre m?s f?cil de contar.

14.06.2017
Me refuerza en mi punto de vista de 30 d?as.

14.06.2017
la decisi?n del consenso (igual que en IETF) se toma en la lista, no en el meeting

Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. · Simplification of the PDP

Bewertung: Konsistent · The 2017 preference for list-based consensus carries into the later PDP redesign and its equal-participation rationale. Details do change: the earlier preference is 30 calendar days, while the later outline gives a four-week last call. The later emphasis on inclusion rather than speed narrows the stated priority without negating the earlier observation that meetings can delay a decision.

LAC-2017-8MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERSAlternativvorschlag · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.

The single contribution welcomes correction of an end user's initial allocation while proposing clearer language about contiguous expansion, unavailable adjacent space, and the choice to renumber earlier. It establishes a conditional design preference, not longitudinal consistency or endorsement of every provision.

MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The single contribution welcomes correction of an end user's initial allocation while proposing clearer language about contiguous expansion, unavailable adjacent space, and the choice to renumber earlier. It establishes a conditional design preference, not longitudinal consistency or endorsement of every provision.

Bedingungen: The suggested wording is a proposal, not evidence that it was incorporated into an adopted text.

03.08.2017
Me parece buena idea la propuesta, sin embargo, tengo una duda.

03.08.2017
que si lo desea renumere ahora en lugar de luego

Rectifying the size of initial allocations · MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS

Bedingungen: The two proposals address different recipient classes. · The emails do not independently establish the frequency of end-user cases.

LAC-2017-9Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6Unterstützung · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.

The author advocates aligning subsequent IPv6 allocation criteria with the revised initial-allocation criteria so earlier recipients are not disadvantaged. Only one contribution is supplied, so persistence or reversal within this proposal cannot be assessed.

Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author advocates aligning subsequent IPv6 allocation criteria with the revised initial-allocation criteria so earlier recipients are not disadvantaged. Only one contribution is supplied, so persistence or reversal within this proposal cannot be assessed.

Bedingungen: The quoted announcement distinguishes consensus from pending board ratification; the author's shorthand about approval does not prove implementation.

07.08.2017
Mi propuesta simplemente incorpora *el mismo* texto que se aprob? para las distribuciones iniciales en las distribuciones subsiguientes

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6

Bewertung: Konsistent · Support for a common initial-allocation rule is followed by advocacy of matching subsequent-allocation criteria, expressly to avoid disadvantaging earlier recipients. These are complementary positions on the same planning issue.

Bedingungen: The comparison concerns the author's rationale, not proof of ratification or deployment.

24.05.2017
v?lido para ambos casos.

07.08.2017
dejar?a en desventaja a quien haya obtenido una distribuci?n inicial *antes* de la reciente aprobaci?n del cambio.

LAC-2018-10Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option)Unterstützung · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.

This contribution supports a substantive rather than numerical understanding of consensus and associates that objective with the author's PDP proposal. It does not reproduce all the process provisions or provide a time series of positions on this proposal.

Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option)

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · This contribution supports a substantive rather than numerical understanding of consensus and associates that objective with the author's PDP proposal. It does not reproduce all the process provisions or provide a time series of positions on this proposal.

Bedingungen: The definition quoted from the PDP is attributed material; the author's explicit endorsement is the evidence of his position. · No stance on an unrelated later proposal follows from the discussion.

25.07.2018
para evitar que se entienda como "mas votos" a favor o "en contra", cuando en realidad quiere decir que no haya objeciones que no sean respondidas.

Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option) · Simplification of the PDP

Bewertung: Konsistent · The later explanation that consensus is not a count of votes matches the earlier PDP reform argument for evaluating substantive objections and including list participants. No reversal of that conception of consensus is shown.

Bedingungen: Endorsement of this principle does not establish agreement with every procedural provision.

25.07.2018
para evitar que se entienda como "mas votos" a favor o "en contra"

14.03.2018

LAC-2018-11Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end usersUnterstützung · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.

The author supports removing the IPv4 end-user multihoming requirement and explains that this component was split from a combined proposal after feedback. This single statement cannot show whether the position persisted or changed later.

Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end users

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author supports removing the IPv4 end-user multihoming requirement and explains that this component was split from a combined proposal after feedback. This single statement cannot show whether the position persisted or changed later.

Bedingungen: The alignment with IPv6 is his stated rationale. · Neither the split nor the request for feedback establishes consensus on this component.

13.08.2018
La LAC-2018-11, simplemente elimina el requisito de multihoming para IPv4 para ser usuario final

Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end users · Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users

Bewertung: Konsistent · The author explains dividing the combined end-user proposal into transfer and multihoming components after community feedback. Supporting both as separate proposals is coherent; it does not imply either had been adopted.

Bedingungen: This is an explicitly described change in proposal structure, not an inferred change from a shared subject line.

13.08.2018
afrontara cada problema con una propuesta especifica y as? lo hice ese mismo d?a.

LAC-2018-12Minor revision to the PDPUnterstützung mit Änderungen · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.

The author regards an explicit restart clause as redundant but accepts wording that restarts the eight-week discussion period in every case. Calling it a clarification while accepting it is not opposition, but one reply cannot establish consistency across subsequent revisions.

Minor revision to the PDP

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author regards an explicit restart clause as redundant but accepts wording that restarts the eight-week discussion period in every case. Calling it a clarification while accepting it is not opposition, but one reply cannot establish consistency across subsequent revisions.

Bedingungen: A proposed revision or offered new version is not proof of adoption. · The rule being discussed is a failed-consensus restart, not the length of last call.

14.09.2018
Luego, bajo mi punto de vista, es *redundante* poner que se reinician los plazos.

14.09.2018
En cualquier caso, se reiniciar?a el plazo de debate de 8 semanas.

LAC-2018-13Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for the Policy ListUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2018-14Inter-RIR Transfer PolicyUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2018-4Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policyUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.

The author supplies a comparison link and explains its colors to facilitate review. The message contains neither the comparison itself nor a substantive sequence of positions, so it cannot support a finding about consistency of the proposed IPv6 corrections.

Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author supplies a comparison link and explains its colors to facilitate review. The message contains neither the comparison itself nor a substantive sequence of positions, so it cannot support a finding about consistency of the proposed IPv6 corrections.

Bedingungen: Authorship and assistance with presentation are not endorsement of every unseen change.

28.02.2018
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo), y la de la derecha (color verde), como quedar?a con los cambios que propongo.

Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy · Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual

Bewertung: Konsistent · Providing a policy diff and later favoring side-by-side comparisons show a compatible preference for making textual changes easier to inspect. That narrow presentation preference supplies no evidence of consistency on the substantive IPv6 or resource-recovery provisions.

Bedingungen: Only the presentation practice is compared here.

28.02.2018
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo)

12.07.2019
Yo desde luego votar?a por un sistema que muestre ?lado a lado? en la web

LAC-2018-5Registration and validation of abuse contactUnterstützung mit Änderungen · 10 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent

Across the discussion the author continues to seek registered, usable abuse contacts and periodic validation. He accepts clarification of validation triggers, discusses longer intervals and grace periods, and considers splitting disputed components. By September he favors stating the validation objective while leaving the operational procedure to LACNIC. Those are substantive refinements around a persistent objective.

Registration and validation of abuse contact

Bewertung: Konsistent · Across the discussion the author continues to seek registered, usable abuse contacts and periodic validation. He accepts clarification of validation triggers, discusses longer intervals and grace periods, and considers splitting disputed components. By September he favors stating the validation objective while leaving the operational procedure to LACNIC. Those are substantive refinements around a persistent objective.

Bedingungen: The final interval and precise consequences of failed validation are not settled by these replies. · General agreement with a suggested revision does not adopt every sanction in the quoted reply. · Predictions of court victories and civil liability remain the author's historical claims, not verified legal conclusions.

08.03.2018
Totalmente de acuerdo en lo que propones del punto 12.4

13.08.2018
Que se verifican autom?ticamente cada cierto tiempo, con un proceso automatizado desde LACNIC

26.09.2018
es mejor que el procedimiento lo defina LACNIC.

Registration and validation of abuse contact

Bewertung: Konsistent · The objection to automated abuse contacts concerns systems that ignore email and force victims into incompatible forms. The author expressly supports automatic initial reports and automatic or semi-automatic processing that responds. Read together, the broad phrase against automation is qualified by this functional distinction, not a ban on all automation.

LAC-2018-6Simplification of the PDPUnterstützung mit Änderungen · 7 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent

The author consistently prioritizes participation in consensus by the whole community. His initial list-only design would remove the expedited track, but he subsequently offers to retain forum presentation and the expedited process, or combine list and forum, if remote participants have equal standing. This is a conditional compromise, not abandonment of the objective.

Simplification of the PDP

Bewertung: Konsistent · The author consistently prioritizes participation in consensus by the whole community. His initial list-only design would remove the expedited track, but he subsequently offers to retain forum presentation and the expedited process, or combine list and forum, if remote participants have equal standing. This is a conditional compromise, not abandonment of the objective.

Bedingungen: The offered changes are not evidence that a revised text was actually published or approved. · Replacing the word discriminatory with exclusionary softens the description without removing the stated objection. · The illustrative participation percentages and accounts of prior forums are not independently verified measurements.

14.03.2018
El objetivo es que el consenso se alcance en la lista, y no en el foro

14.03.2018
y entonces mantener el proceso expeditivo

15.03.2018
hacer que el consenso sea de lista+foro en lugar de solo lista o solo foro

Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. · Simplification of the PDP

LAC-2018-7Clarifications of Sub-AssignmentsUnterstützung · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.

The author seeks an exception for temporary addressing of guests, employees or students while retaining the distinction from permanent connectivity service. He explicitly asks whether to cap that exception at a /64 or leave size open. Presenting these alternatives does not choose either one, and there is no later position here to compare.

Clarifications of Sub-Assignments

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author seeks an exception for temporary addressing of guests, employees or students while retaining the distinction from permanent connectivity service. He explicitly asks whether to cap that exception at a /64 or leave size open. Presenting these alternatives does not choose either one, and there is no later position here to compare.

Bedingungen: Other regions are contextual references, not evidence that a particular LACNIC alternative was adopted.

13.08.2018
La diferencia es limitar esto a un m?ximo de un /64, o dejarlo abierto.

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Clarifications of Sub-Assignments

Bewertung: Konsistent · The earlier end-user/LIR distinction concerns assignment to separate institutions in a national network. The later sub-assignment clarification explicitly distinguishes temporary guest or employee connectivity from permanent service. These scopes can coexist; the later temporary-use exception does not establish that permanent distribution to other organizations was reclassified as end-user use.

Bedingungen: The imprecise university wording in the earlier example remains an uncertainty, not a basis for a categorical identity rule. · The later message leaves the /64 size alternative undecided.

LAC-2018-8Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End UsersUnterstützung · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent

The May contribution defends avoiding disruptive end-user renumbering; the August explanation preserves that objective while describing the simplified transfer component after the multihoming question was separated. The split changes the packaging, not the stated purpose of enabling the existing user to keep its addressing.

Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users

Bewertung: Konsistent · The May contribution defends avoiding disruptive end-user renumbering; the August explanation preserves that objective while describing the simplified transfer component after the multihoming question was separated. The split changes the packaging, not the stated purpose of enabling the existing user to keep its addressing.

Bedingungen: The quoted participant's uncertainty is not the author's own neutral position. · An ISP proposal's reported consensus does not establish consensus for the end-user proposal.

22.05.2018
un end-user puede tener requisitos que le impiden renumerar

13.08.2018
un ISP "ceda" con un sistema simplificado de transferencias, el direccionamiento al usuario final que lo usa.

Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users · Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs

Bewertung: Konsistent · Both the ISP and end-user discussions pursue retention of existing addressing through an agreed transfer to avoid renumbering. The author separates the recipient classes while using the same operational rationale; support in one discussion is not evidence of consensus in the other.

Bedingungen: The effect on routing remains a debated claim.

22.05.2018

LAC-2018-9Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPsUnterstützung mit Änderungen · 7 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent

The author repeatedly defends voluntary transfer of the same addressing to avoid renumbering and argues that the routing and cost consequences are comparable to ordinary transfers. The later offer to replace ceder with transferir makes his intended mechanism explicit rather than reversing it.

Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs

Bewertung: Konsistent · The author repeatedly defends voluntary transfer of the same addressing to avoid renumbering and argues that the routing and cost consequences are comparable to ordinary transfers. The later offer to replace ceder with transferir makes his intended mechanism explicit rather than reversing it.

Bedingungen: His routing-equivalence argument is contested advocacy, not an independently measured network outcome. · The half-joking routing-table remark is not a policy commitment; the rhetorical question about abolishing transfers is not a repeal proposal. · The participating organizations must agree and an authorized representative must approve; no unilateral right is asserted.

03.04.2018
tiene que haber acuerdo entre ambas partes.

03.05.2018
pero resuelve el problema de evitar la renumeraci?n.

30.05.2018
poner transferir en lugar de ceder.

Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users · Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs

LAC-2019-2IPv4 Mergers, Acquisitions, Reorganizations and RelocationsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2019-3IPv6 Mergers, Acquisitions, Reorganizations and RelocationsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2019-4ASN Mergers, Acquisitions, Reorganizations and RelocationsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2019-5Resource Hijacking is a Policy ViolationUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2019-6Resources Are Assigned in a Unique and Exclusive CapacityUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2019-7PDP Chair Election ProcedureUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.

The author acknowledges missing a response deadline and agrees that further versions may be needed. This procedural exchange does not establish support for every chair-election provision, a substantive reversal, or a declaration of consensus.

PDP Chair Election Procedure

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author acknowledges missing a response deadline and agrees that further versions may be needed. This procedural exchange does not establish support for every chair-election provision, a substantive reversal, or a declaration of consensus.

Bedingungen: A preference for immediate replies is not a position on each election rule. · A shared email subject does not by itself attribute a stance on another proposal.

24.06.2019
Mi respuesta no negaba una versi?n 2 o 3 o las que hagan falta

LAC-2019-9Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the ManualUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.

The author favors a side-by-side comparison tool, downloadable text and PDF, and room for exceptional formats. This is agreement about how to discuss a proposal, not evidence of support or opposition to its resource-recovery provisions or a later policy outcome.

Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual

Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The author favors a side-by-side comparison tool, downloadable text and PDF, and room for exceptional formats. This is agreement about how to discuss a proposal, not evidence of support or opposition to its resource-recovery provisions or a later policy outcome.

Bedingungen: No substantive recovery-rule consistency judgment can be inferred from agreement with the tooling suggestion.

12.07.2019
Yo desde luego votar?a por un sistema que muestre ?lado a lado? en la web

Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy · Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual

Bedingungen: Only the presentation practice is compared here.

28.02.2018
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo)

12.07.2019

LAC-2020-3Impact Analysis Is MandatoryUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2020-4Adjustment to the Functions of the Board of DirectorsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2020-6Miscellaneous Modifications to the PDPUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2021-2Non-Competition Between ProposalsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2021-3PDP Chair ElectionUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2021-4Permission to Transfer and Non-Return of ResourcesUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2021-5Update End-User and End-Site DefinitionsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2022-2Clarification: The lease of resources is not allowed under the policies in forceUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2022-4PDP Chair ElectionsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2023-1Clarify Definition of ConsensusUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2023-7Temporary TransfersUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2024-1Introducing Proposals to the PDPUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2025-1Distribution of Resources to Natural PersonsUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

LAC-2025-4Priority on the IPv4 Waiting List for Those Who Have Already Deployed IPv6Unbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

2007-08Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 ResourcesUnbekannt · 4 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

2011-04Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial AllocationUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

2018-02Assignment Clarification in IPv6 PolicyUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

2018-04PDP ClarificationUnbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben

2024-02IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 and extension to /28Unbekannt · 0 Diskussionsbeiträge

Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben