LACNIC · RIR Watchdog
LACNIC
Start with Policy for a plain-language record of what changed, who argued for what, how the decision evolved, and where the evidence has gaps. Story adds BTW reporting and context.
Participation concentration
Who actually shaped this RIR?
Discussion statistics are still being updated. Figures shown reflect the records processed so far.
Open a linked profile to follow that person or organisation across policies, messages and changing positions. Every figure remains tied to the stated source coverage.
Recurring people and organisations
- Jordi Palet Martinez40 Policies participated · 84 Discussion messages
- RICARDO PATARA28 Policies participated · 68 Discussion messages
- Nicolas Antoniello26 Policies participated · 55 Discussion messages
- Juan Alejo Peirano24 Policies participated · 83 Discussion messages
- Gianina Pensky22 Policies participated · 94 Discussion messages
- Unknown21 Policies participated · 45 Discussion messages
- Paola Perez18 Policies participated · 40 Discussion messages
- Carlos Plasencia18 Policies participated · 35 Discussion messages
- Arturo Servin14 Policies participated · 32 Discussion messages
- Alex Ojeda12 Policies participated · 20 Discussion messages
Policy records
Start with Policy- LAC-2026-3
Require Valid ROA Coverage for Requesting Additional Resources
Withdrawn · Official status: Withdrawn
Introduced: Aug 12, 2026 · Latest activity: Nov 6, 20263Policy versions4Discussion messages5Total participants4Effective participants100%Top-five discussion share - LAC-2026-4
Justification of Need for Inter-RIR Transfers
Under discussion · Official status: Under discussion
Introduced: Sep 15, 2026 · Latest activity: Oct 14, 20265Policy versions6Discussion messages6Total participants4.5Effective participants100%Top-five discussion share - LAC-2026-6
Clarifications to the PDP
Under discussion · Official status: Under discussion
Introduced: Sep 25, 2026 · Latest activity: Oct 14, 20263Policy versions1Discussion messages2Total participants1Effective participants100%Top-five discussion share - LAC-2026-5
Recovery of Unjustified Legacy Resources
Under discussion · Official status: Under discussion
Introduced: Sep 16, 2026 · Latest activity: Oct 14, 20263Policy versions1Discussion messages2Total participants1Effective participants100%Top-five discussion share - LAC-2025-5
Sub-Assignment of IPv4 Resources to Third Parties
Accepted · Official status: Ratified
Introduced: Dec 1, 2025 · Latest activity: Oct 14, 20262Policy versions1Discussion messages5Total participants1Effective participants100%Top-five discussion share
Latest stories
Open Story
Story
LACNIC Took Conciliation Out of Its Directors' Dispute Route
The registry changed a small clause with a large institutional meaning. A director who quarrels with LACNIC under the new commitment meets a three-arbitrator process in the contract text. The previous agreement first sent the parties to conciliation. The Board also wrote down…
Story
A University’s IPv4 Block Went Eight Ways. LACNIC Kept the Receipts.
The 2026 transfer file shows eight specified pieces of a Mexican university’s `148.224.0.0/16` address space going to seven named recipients. One /18 accounts for three quarters of the visible addresses. The record is precise about the blocks and much less helpful about the…
Story
LACNIC Filed Two /22 Transfers. Their Routes Rose in Lockstep.
VIP Network handed two separate IPv4 /22s to LINQ on LACNIC's 27 October transfer ledger. Both exact RDAP cards changed at 11:24:12 UTC. RIPE's routing monitors then saw the same sequence for each block: zero full-table peers at 16:00, 39 at midnight, and all 322 sampled peers a…
Story
LACNIC Has 39 TIM-Labeled Receipts for One /16. The Smallest Pieces Hog the Page.
Twenty-seven /24 transfers dominate the line count inside `186.196.0.0/16`. Four larger entries carry more than half the addresses. A registry ledger needs both denominators.