Person profile
PersonPublic policy participant
The available evidence covers Roles: Chief Executive Officer (LACNIC).
Source description Public policy participant
LACNIC REPORT Raul Echeberria, LACNIC
public people profile
Raúl Echeberría joined Internet Society in 2014 as Vice President of Global Engagement
public people profile
Last updated: 2026-09-27
Source facts
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
Opposition to a new policy-list acceptable-use policy rests on the view that existing tools can handle the incidents described. The participant leaves room for additional tools if an unresolved gap is demonstrated, rather than denying that incidents occurred.
Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for the Policy List
Assessment: Consistent · Opposition to a new policy-list acceptable-use policy rests on the view that existing tools can handle the incidents described. The participant leaves room for additional tools if an unresolved gap is demonstrated, rather than denying that incidents occurred.
Conditions: The assessment of existing remedies is the participant's stated view, not an independently established measure of their effectiveness. · The objection is to adding a general policy for the cited problems under the circumstances discussed.
Mi opini?n es que no se necesita una PUA, por lo cual ni siquiera debo comentar el punto 2.
Si en alg?n momento queda evidente que existen problemas que no se pueden resolver con las herramientas disponibles (por ej. el c?digo de conducta), tendr?a sentido desde mi punto de vista, buscar nuevas herramientas, pero no creo que sea el caso en este momento.
No se puede hacer una pol?tica general para resolver temas puntuales.
Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for the Policy List · Adoption of policy proposals for discussion at the Public Policy Forum, Discussion List and call for consensus as working documents.
Assessment: Consistent · Rejecting a new acceptable-use policy while supporting discussion-process reform is a qualified distinction: the participant sees existing remedies as adequate in the former case and an unresolved agenda problem in the latter. The shared criterion is a concrete need for change, not opposition to all procedures.
Conditions: The existence and scale of each problem are the participant's assessments in these exchanges. · Support for an agenda remedy remains open to alternatives and does not establish its effect on participation.
Si en alg?n momento queda evidente que existen problemas que no se pueden resolver con las herramientas disponibles (por ej. el c?digo de conducta), tendr?a sentido desde mi punto de vista, buscar nuevas herramientas, pero no creo que sea el caso en este momento.
La propuesta de Arturo es una opci?n. Si esa opci?n no es la mejor para algunos, hay que buscar otra, pero el problema hay que resolverlo.
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
On the PDP chair election procedure, the participant maintains opposition to the more complex proposal while accepting that prior mailing-list participation could be required through a narrow amendment. That exception qualifies the objection; it does not reverse it.
Assessment: Consistent · On the PDP chair election procedure, the participant maintains opposition to the more complex proposal while accepting that prior mailing-list participation could be required through a narrow amendment. That exception qualifies the objection; it does not reverse it.
Conditions: The preferred approach preserves community self-management and requires a clear reason to replace the existing procedure. · The evidence concerns these June 2020 exchanges, not approval or rejection of every later version.
Porque el mecanismo actual es mucho m?s basado en la comunidad. Es la propia comunidad que se autogestiona.
Alcanzar?a con una propuesta que solamente agregue este punto espec?fico.
Como dije antes. Bueno y simple, doblemente bueno.
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
The participant supports wider IPv6 deployment but repeatedly rejects making IPv6 operation a condition of IPv4 transfers. The dispute concerns the means, expected effect and proper scope of resource policy, not the IPv6 objective or a categorical rejection of operational requirements.
Add IPv6 operational as a requirement for IPv4 transfers
Assessment: Consistent · The participant supports wider IPv6 deployment but repeatedly rejects making IPv6 operation a condition of IPv4 transfers. The dispute concerns the means, expected effect and proper scope of resource policy, not the IPv6 objective or a categorical rejection of operational requirements.
Conditions: The participant accepts that policies can impose requirements and affect markets, while disputing the appropriate trade-off in this case. · Training, coordination and operator engagement are preferred approaches in these messages; their comparative effectiveness is not proven here.
comparto el esp?ritu que fundamenta la propuesta pero NO la apoyo
No apoyo esta pol?tica porque no me parece el camino adecuado
La discusi?n se basa en donde colocar el punto de equilibrio (o el trade off) y cuales requerimientos apuntan al uso eficiente del recurso que se asigna y cuales implican otro tipo de obligaciones.
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
Support for making proposals working documents concerns a way to focus discussion and address repeated, unsupported proposals. It remains support for the problem and direction, with the choice of mechanism open; the participant explicitly treats effects on participation as speculative.
Assessment: Consistent · Support for making proposals working documents concerns a way to focus discussion and address repeated, unsupported proposals. It remains support for the problem and direction, with the choice of mechanism open; the participant explicitly treats effects on participation as speculative.
Conditions: A process change must preserve the freedom to propose and discuss ideas. · These messages do not establish that the proposed mechanism improves participation or endorse every clause.
Ser? esta u otra propuesta, eso ya lo veremos, pero el concepto es muy apropiado.
Como no lo conozco, lo ?nico que puedo hacer es especular.
La propuesta de Arturo es una opci?n. Si esa opci?n no es la mejor para algunos, hay que buscar otra, pero el problema hay que resolverlo.
Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for the Policy List · Adoption of policy proposals for discussion at the Public Policy Forum, Discussion List and call for consensus as working documents.
Assessment: Consistent · Rejecting a new acceptable-use policy while supporting discussion-process reform is a qualified distinction: the participant sees existing remedies as adequate in the former case and an unresolved agenda problem in the latter. The shared criterion is a concrete need for change, not opposition to all procedures.
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
The two early responses on improving the PDP welcome combining alternative approaches and including a broad range of views. They support collaborative process design, without resolving the details of a final proposal.
Assessment: Consistent · The two early responses on improving the PDP welcome combining alternative approaches and including a broad range of views. They support collaborative process design, without resolving the details of a final proposal.
Conditions: Combining ideas is not equivalent to endorsing every provision of either proposal. · Only these two early contributions support this finding.
Tal vez deber?an trabajar en una combinaci?n de ambas propuestas.
Hagamos lo posible por incluir tantas visiones como sea posible.
Modification of the PDP to improve the quality of proposals and increase participation in the policy development process · Non-Competition Between Proposals
Assessment: Consistent · Encouraging authors to combine PDP ideas fits the later rejection of exclusive control over policy-list contributions. Both positions favor collective policy development, while leaving room for attribution and rights in separately published research.
Conditions: This comparison does not treat every form of intellectual property as incompatible with open participation. · It describes the positions in the cited exchanges, not a universal rule attributed to the participant.
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
Opposition to non-competition between proposals remains consistent with treating policy-list contributions as freely usable community work. The participant distinguishes those contributions from separately published research whose author may retain intellectual-property rights; that distinction is not a reversal on ownership of policy proposals.
Non-Competition Between Proposals
Assessment: Consistent · Opposition to non-competition between proposals remains consistent with treating policy-list contributions as freely usable community work. The participant distinguishes those contributions from separately published research whose author may retain intellectual-property rights; that distinction is not a reversal on ownership of policy proposals.
Conditions: Attribution remains appropriate even where policy contributions are freely reusable. · The distinction addresses policy contributions and separately published research, not every possible intellectual-property dispute.
Estoy totalmente en contra de esta propuesta.
Creo que las contribuciones que se hacen en esta lista en relaci?n a pol?ticas de manejo de recursos de numeraci?n de Internet, deben ser p?blicas y de uso libre de la comunidad.
El autor puede publicar el art?culo en otro lado, aplicar las reglas de propiedad intelectual que le parezcan m?s conveniente y luego hacer una referencia a esa publicaci?n desde la propuesta de pol?tica.
Modification of the PDP to improve the quality of proposals and increase participation in the policy development process · Non-Competition Between Proposals
Assessment: Consistent · Encouraging authors to combine PDP ideas fits the later rejection of exclusive control over policy-list contributions. Both positions favor collective policy development, while leaving room for attribution and rights in separately published research.
Conditions: The existence and scale of each problem are the participant's assessments in these exchanges. · Support for an agenda remedy remains open to alternatives and does not establish its effect on participation.
Si en alg?n momento queda evidente que existen problemas que no se pueden resolver con las herramientas disponibles (por ej. el c?digo de conducta), tendr?a sentido desde mi punto de vista, buscar nuevas herramientas, pero no creo que sea el caso en este momento.
La propuesta de Arturo es una opci?n. Si esa opci?n no es la mejor para algunos, hay que buscar otra, pero el problema hay que resolverlo.
Tal vez deber?an trabajar en una combinaci?n de ambas propuestas.
Hagamos lo posible por incluir tantas visiones como sea posible.
Creo que las contribuciones que se hacen en esta lista en relaci?n a pol?ticas de manejo de recursos de numeraci?n de Internet, deben ser p?blicas y de uso libre de la comunidad.
Conditions: This comparison does not treat every form of intellectual property as incompatible with open participation. · It describes the positions in the cited exchanges, not a universal rule attributed to the participant.
Tal vez deber?an trabajar en una combinaci?n de ambas propuestas.
Hagamos lo posible por incluir tantas visiones como sea posible.
Creo que las contribuciones que se hacen en esta lista en relaci?n a pol?ticas de manejo de recursos de numeraci?n de Internet, deben ser p?blicas y de uso libre de la comunidad.
