Carlos Plasencia

Public policy participant

The available evidence covers Roles: policy proposal author (LACNIC).

Source description Public policy participant

Latest 2026-09-20

Roles: policy proposal author (LACNIC)

Confidence

Information type: RIR policy participation

Related details

Carlos Plasencia
wnload TXT PDF DOCX Original language Español Last modified 14/04/2014 Status Implemented 100 %. Authors Juan Alejo - Version [1] Carlos Plasencia - Version [2] In discussion 25/11/2013 Last call for comments 24/01/2014 - 14/02/2014 Ratification by the board 04/03/2014 Ratified 25/03/2014 Implemented 15/08/2014 Compare versions Version 1 Version 2 Summary T...
public people profile

Last updated: 2026-09-20

Roles

Role:policy proposal author (LACNIC)Not yet assessedHistorical

Source facts

RIR Policy Participation

1RIRs participated

18Policies participated

35Total policy messages

Jun 5, 2014First participation

Apr 29, 2016Last participation

LAC-2013-3Adapting the allocation / assignment policy for IPv4 exhaustion.Unknown · 0 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
LAC-2013-4Management of Returned Internet ResourcesUnknown · 1 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
Management of Returned Internet Resources
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
Conditions: Reporting a community outcome is not treated as personal support.
Jun 5, 2014
LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources
Management of Returned Internet Resources · Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained record reports parallel forum outcomes for both proposals but does not state the participant's own substantive position on either one, so no cross-policy consistency conclusion is supported.
Conditions: Consensus and last-call reporting are treated as community outcomes rather than as the participant's personal policy positions.
Jun 5, 2014
LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources
Jun 5, 2014
LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
LAC-2014-1Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deploymentUnknown · 1 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
Conditions: Reporting a community outcome is not treated as personal support.
Jun 5, 2014
LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Management of Returned Internet Resources · Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained record reports parallel forum outcomes for both proposals but does not state the participant's own substantive position on either one, so no cross-policy consistency conclusion is supported.
Conditions: Consensus and last-call reporting are treated as community outcomes rather than as the participant's personal policy positions.
Jun 5, 2014
LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources
Jun 5, 2014
LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
LAC-2014-2Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirementsUnknown · 3 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The retained messages report consensus, ratification, and implementation timing, but do not express the participant's own policy position.
Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages report consensus, ratification, and implementation timing, but do not express the participant's own policy position.
Conditions: Administrative implementation notices are not treated as votes or endorsements.
Feb 26, 2015
The proposal was RATIFIED. However, it will be implemented as soon as the corresponding settings will be completed in LACNIC?s system.
LAC-2014-3Update to the Policy Development ProcessUnknown · 2 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The supplied material lists the Policy Development Process update for presentation but provides no substantive participant viewpoint on it.
Update to the Policy Development Process
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The supplied material lists the Policy Development Process update for presentation but provides no substantive participant viewpoint on it.
Conditions: A separate retained observation assigned to this policy discusses another proposal's status and does not supply a position on this policy.
May 10, 2015
LAC-2014-3: Update to the Policy Development Process
LAC-2015-1Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC.Unknown · 3 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The participant asks whether the community wishes to continue or abandon the proposal, but does not state a personal support or opposition position.
Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC.
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The participant asks whether the community wishes to continue or abandon the proposal, but does not state a personal support or opposition position.
Conditions: A request for community direction is procedural and is not treated as the sender's vote.
Jul 27, 2015
Would you like to continue discussing this proposal or do you believe it should be abandoned?
LAC-2015-2Inter-RIR TransfersUnknown · 3 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The retained messages list, summarize, and report the forum outcome for Inter-RIR Transfers, but do not identify the participant's own position.
Inter-RIR Transfers
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages list, summarize, and report the forum outcome for Inter-RIR Transfers, but do not identify the participant's own position.
Conditions: Reported vote totals and status are community outcomes, not personal votes.
Oct 8, 2015
2015-2: Inter-RIR transfers. 17 in favor, 87 against, 33 abstentions. ABANDONED
LAC-2015-3IPv4 exhaustion policy with a scheduled termination date and the scheduled return of large users' blocks.Unknown · 3 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The retained messages report the proposal's discussion and eventual abandonment, but do not state the participant's own substantive viewpoint.
IPv4 exhaustion policy with a scheduled termination date and the scheduled return of large users' blocks.
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages report the proposal's discussion and eventual abandonment, but do not state the participant's own substantive viewpoint.
Conditions: A status change to abandoned is not evidence of the sender's personal opposition.
Apr 29, 2016
The status of proposals ?2015-3 IPv4 exhaustion policy with a scheduled termination date and the scheduled return of large users' blocks? has changed from ?UNDER DISCUSSION? to ?ABANDONED?.
LAC-2015-4Resource Recovery TimelineUnknown · 2 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The retained messages summarize the Resource Recovery Timeline proposal and report its forum result, but do not state the participant's own policy position.
Resource Recovery Timeline
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages summarize the Resource Recovery Timeline proposal and report its forum result, but do not state the participant's own policy position.
Conditions: Reported vote totals and last-call status are community outcomes, not personal votes.
Oct 8, 2015
2015-4: Resource Recovery Timeline. 83 in favor, 3 against, 14 abstentions. APPROVED ? The proposal is now in the last call for comments period.
LAC-2015-5Increase the minimum period of time required before a block can be transferred under section 2.3.2.18Unknown · 1 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The retained message summarizes the proposed three-year transfer waiting period but does not express the participant's own support or opposition.
Increase the minimum period of time required before a block can be transferred under section 2.3.2.18
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained message summarizes the proposed three-year transfer waiting period but does not express the participant's own support or opposition.
Conditions: A neutral policy summary is not treated as a personal viewpoint.
Sep 14, 2015
2015-5: Increase the minimum period of time required before a block can be transferred under section 2.3.2.18 Summary: This proposal seeks to modify section 2.3.2.18, increasing the period of time required before an assigned block can be transfered to 3 years, from the one-year period currently in force.
LAC-2015-6Modify the scope of IPv4 Exhaustion Phase 2 for the regionUnknown · 2 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The retained messages describe the expedited process and invite comments for or against the proposal, without stating the participant's own position.
Modify the scope of IPv4 Exhaustion Phase 2 for the region
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages describe the expedited process and invite comments for or against the proposal, without stating the participant's own position.
Conditions: Soliciting views on approval is not treated as an endorsement or objection.
Oct 27, 2015
We would like to invite you all to participate by expressing your views and comments in favor or against approval of the proposal.
LAC-2016-1Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supportedUnknown · 3 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The retained messages announce and describe successive versions of the IPv4-IPv6 connectivity proposal but do not state the participant's own substantive view.
Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages announce and describe successive versions of the IPv4-IPv6 connectivity proposal but do not state the participant's own substantive view.
Conditions: Quoting proposal text as a forum chair is treated as procedural transmission.
Jan 8, 2016
The community's comments and opinions are essential to the proper functioning of the policy development process.- Do you support this policy or are you against it?
LAC-2016-2IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.Unknown · 1 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The only retained observation lists the critical-infrastructure IPv4 reserve proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The only retained observation lists the critical-infrastructure IPv4 reserve proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
Conditions: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.
Apr 18, 2016
LAC-2016-2: IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.
LAC-2016-3Remove the reference to a provider’s "multihomed or non-multihomed status".Unknown · 1 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The only retained observation lists the multihoming-status proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
Remove the reference to a provider’s "multihomed or non-multihomed status".
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The only retained observation lists the multihoming-status proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
Conditions: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.
Apr 18, 2016
LAC-2016-3: Remove the reference to a provider?s "multihomed or non-multihomed status".
LAC-2016-4Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end usersUnknown · 3 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The retained messages announce and describe versions of the direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages announce and describe versions of the direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Conditions: Publishing version changes as a forum chair is not treated as a personal policy position.
Mar 28, 2016
Proposal LAC-2016-4 has been updated to version 2.
LAC-2016-5Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocationsUnknown · 3 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The retained messages announce and describe versions of the initial IPv6 allocation-size proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages announce and describe versions of the initial IPv6 allocation-size proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Conditions: Publishing version changes as a forum chair is not treated as a personal policy position.
Mar 30, 2016
Proposal LAC-2016-5 has been updated to version 2.
LAC-2016-6Modify the initial assignment size and the requirements for subsequent direct IPv6 assignments to end sitesUnknown · 2 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The retained messages announce and list the subsequent direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Modify the initial assignment size and the requirements for subsequent direct IPv6 assignments to end sites
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained messages announce and list the subsequent direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Conditions: Receipt and agenda notices are procedural evidence only.
Mar 31, 2016
A new Policy Proposal has been received and assigned the following ID:LAC-2016-6.
LAC-2016-7Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocationsUnknown · 1 Discussion messages
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
The only retained observation associated with this policy is an agenda listing of an IPv6 allocation-size proposal; it does not establish the participant's own viewpoint.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The only retained observation associated with this policy is an agenda listing of an IPv6 allocation-size proposal; it does not establish the participant's own viewpoint.
Conditions: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.
Apr 18, 2016
LAC-2016-5: Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations.