Management of Returned Internet Resources

Principles Governing the Distribution of Number Resources

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained contribution is classified as question_or_clarify for Principles Governing the Distribution of Number Resources and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.

Conditions: 质疑未经列表公告即进入 last call 的程序。

Nov 19, 2013

Me sorprende mirar en la pagina de lacnic que la propuesta lac-2013-02 figurar?a ya en el per?odo de "last call" http://www.lacnic.net/web/lacnic/politicas siendo que no hubo ningun a?ncio acerca de eso en la lista! que pasa? si queremos comentarios hay que llamarlos en la lista!! Saludos

Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements

Assessment: Mixed · The retained contributions on Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements vary across question_or_clarify, procedural_or_neutral. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.

Jun 4, 2014

Jun 17, 2014

IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.

Assessment: Consistent · The retained contributions use the same question_or_clarify classification for IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.; no contrary position appears in the supplied record.

Conditions: The author asks whether the critical-infrastructure reservation needs a narrower scope and clearer wording. · The author asks for a coherent prefix limit and allocation treatment in the critical-infrastructure proposal.

Feb 12, 2016

Feb 23, 2016

Hola Edmundo, que tal? Me parece bien el ajuste propuesto. Mis unicos comentarios: - como tu propones ajustes a los p?rrafos 11.1 y 11.2, quiz?s proponer tambi?n ajustes al 2.3.3.2 para que el prefijo m?ximo all? sea /22 y no /20 como esta actualmente. As? se mantiene coherencia. - caso la propuesta sea aprobada y implementada antes de la fase 3, una organizaci?n de infra critica tendria asignaci?n desde el espacio fase 2 (actual), o ya de esa reserva especial? un abrazo Ricardo Patara

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Assessment: Mixed · The retained contributions on Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations vary across propose_alternative, procedural_or_neutral, oppose, question_or_clarify. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.

Conditions: Keep non-commercial/internal providers within the ISP definition and retain a time-bounded utilization plan instead of organizational longevity. · Keep the four-year horizon; agrees on fee neutrality but questions why stable networks require the proposed change. · Retains the four-year usage plan, distinguishing planned network size from the date of deployment. · Explains forecast-growth versus rollout timing; the wording about longer periods remains ambiguous. · Does not see a clear need for version 2. · Asks about category eligibility and the alleged four-year barrier. · The author asks for clarification about the distinction between LIR and ISP customer requirements and the proposed government allocation model. · The author disputes the premise that separate requirements or categories are needed and redirects tariff questions to the proper governance body. · The author opposes the proposed separate category and requirement changes, arguing that the existing policy already handles the technical need. · The author directly asks what problem the LAC-2016-5 revision is meant to solve for the stated university and provider arrangement. · The author asks whether LAC-2016-5 is still only a proposal rather than an implemented policy. · The author directly challenges the proposal's rationale and says the European example does not justify the proposed LACNIC change. · The author continues questioning the distinction between the proposed cases and says it remains unclear why they differ.

Mar 11, 2016

Mar 16, 2016

Mar 16, 2016

Mar 18, 2016

Mar 31, 2016

Con todo el respeto, estoy en contra. no veo clara esa necesidad. Saludos Ricardo Patara

Mar 31, 2016

Hola Jordi, Dos consultas: - que haria un gobierno, por ejemplo, aplicar por ese nuevo punto 4.5.14 y no por el otro de end user? - en que ese punto de presentar un plan de necesidad de IPs para 4 a?os te parece impedir a estos ISPs (no comerciales) en obtener la asignaci?n? Saludos Em 31/03/16 09:02, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ escreveu:

Aug 17, 2016

Aug 18, 2016

Aug 30, 2016

Aug 30, 2016

Hola Nico, comprendo, pero no me queda claro cual es el problema aqu?? si las universidades estatales utilizan a el servicio de Inform?tica como su "proveedor" de acesso hacia la internet, nada m?s logico que cuente con bloques su asignados por dicha organizaci?n. la pol?tica actual se les permitir?a eso. saludos

Aug 30, 2016

Gracias Jordi, Voy a leerlo. Entonces para aclarar, tratase todav?a de una propuesta y no un texto ya implementado. Habia compreendido que era algo ya en operacion. gracias y abrazos Ricardo Patara

Aug 30, 2016

Aug 30, 2016

Hola Jordi, Comprendo. ok, pero si la "longevidad" de la asignaci?n es, por ejemplo, para 4 a?os, cual el problema? sigo insistiendo, cual el problema de un plan de uso de asiganci?n considerando 4 a?os para una empresa de gobierno? no :) todavia no me queda claro que son distintos un abrazo

One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained contribution is classified as oppose for One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.

Conditions: Explicit opposition; questions IPv6 justification, the change in transfer rationale and regional affordability.

Feb 3, 2017

Addenda − Resource revocation

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained contribution is classified as oppose for Addenda − Resource revocation and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.

Conditions: Objects to including the exception in policy because existing negotiation mechanisms could address it.

Apr 26, 2017

Modify the Resource Recovery Process

Assessment: Mixed · The retained contributions on Modify the Resource Recovery Process vary across question_or_clarify, support. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.

Conditions: Asks how the proposal prevents re-registration and whether administrative access should also be restricted. · Explicitly supports the resource-recovery proposal.

Apr 26, 2017

Hola Edmundo, que tal? Me parece bastante interesante la propuesta. Pero una consulta. Si solamente se quita la delegaci?n Inversa pero se le permite al administrador ingresar el sistema de administraci?n de IPs no habr?a garant?as que de el no las vuelva a registrar, no? Has pensando en algo como tambi?n impedirles a los administradores que acedan al sistema? Un abrazo Ricardo Patara

Aug 17, 2017

Hola Yo soporto esa propuesta. Saludos Ricardo Patara

MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS

Assessment: Mixed · The retained contributions on MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS vary across support, propose_alternative. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.

Conditions: Defends needs-based enlargement, including contiguous expansion where possible. · Explains the revised allocation-constraint wording and its relationship to received comments.

Aug 4, 2017

Aug 22, 2017

Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)

Assessment: Consistent · The retained contributions use the same oppose classification for Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR); no contrary position appears in the supplied record.

Conditions: Explicitly opposes the GIR proposal in a personal capacity because its claimed need or problem is not concrete. · This personal opposition is not an institutional verdict or evidence of community consensus. · Ricardo explicitly maintains his opposition to the Global Internet Registry proposal. He questions compatibility with ICP-2, the need for a separate global registry and the proposed administrative/jurisdictional treatment. · The ICP-2 and proposal passages are quotations being challenged, not Ricardo’s own proposed rules. His description of legal investigation and economic effects is argument, not an independently established finding. · Ricardo continues challenging the proposal’s justification: a global label does not change routing, existing regional arrangements already permit some out-of-region use, and an ICP-2 conflict would still need resolution. · His requests for explanation qualify his continuing opposition; they do not indicate that he has accepted the proposal. · Ricardo continues to question the concrete problem a GIR would solve and argues for policies responding to nearer-term needs. He distinguishes the historical creation of regional registries from the proposal’s hypothetical cases. · His remarks about routing labels and space scenarios continue the same objection; they do not show a new policy position on inter-RIR transfers or geolocation proposals.

Jan 22, 2018

Hola, A titulo personal. Soy contra la propuesta. No me parece concreta la necesidad/problema presentado como justificativa saludos Ricardo Patara

Mar 7, 2018

Mar 7, 2018

Mar 8, 2018

Minor revision to the PDP

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained contribution is classified as support_with_changes for Minor revision to the PDP and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.

Conditions: The author considers the correction appropriate but conditions agreement on restarting the applicable periods even when the same version is maintained.

Sep 14, 2018

Update the policy on transfers due to mergers/acquisitions

Assessment: Mixed · The retained contributions on Update the policy on transfers due to mergers/acquisitions vary across support, procedural_or_neutral, unclear. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.

Conditions: Defends the one-year waiting period as protection against acquiring companies only to monetize their addresses; argues that genuine operational integration normally takes time. · Supports reflecting the claimed legacy-status rule in policy text and making the transfer sections consistent. These are the author’s reasons, not independently verified current law or a declaration of consensus. · Mike Burns’s quoted objections and the embedded institutional announcement are excluded from the author’s own position. · Ricardo’s entire own reply is a thank-you in the LAC-2018-2 thread. Mike Burns’s detailed opposition is quoted material and must not be attributed to Ricardo. This acknowledgment does not establish Ricardo’s substantive position. · The author defends the use of policy criteria while acknowledging the objections as valid, but does not state an unambiguous overall position or accept a specific amendment in this message. · The author recognizes a concrete problem case he had not considered but does not state an overall policy position or a definite change in this message. · The author treats the proposed same-group exception as an interesting option to study with LACNIC and notes that a procedure would be needed, but does not explicitly accept the amendment or state an overall position in this message.

Mar 7, 2018

Mar 7, 2018

thanks ;-)

Sep 25, 2018

Hola Juan, que tal? Antes de todo, felicitaciones :-) de total acuerdo, pero no creo que al poner criterios en las pol?ticas lacnic se pone como un regulador. ya existen otras reglas y "restricciones" implementadas y ni por eso se le ve a lacnic de esa forma comprendo los puntos y son muy validos. ok, agradezco el aporte un abrazo

Sep 25, 2018

Hola Alejandro. muy interesante ese caso, confeso que no lo habia pensado. agradezco todo el aporte ac? y en el foro. un abrazo

Sep 26, 2018

Hola Alejandro, ;-) nuevamente, agradezco el ejemplo. muy importante. es una opci?n interesante. capaz que estudiar bien y con lacnic para ver si les sale facil identificar empresas de un mismo grupo. los grandes s?n los faciles, pero habr? otros menos conocidos y se necesitar? un procedimento. entedido. agradezco todo el aporte. abrazos

Registration and validation of abuse contact

Assessment: Mixed · The retained contributions on Registration and validation of abuse contact vary across question_or_clarify, oppose, support_with_changes. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.

Conditions: Welcomes a WHOIS abuse-reporting field but raises concerns about prescribing incident-handling processes for ISPs of different sizes and capabilities. · Questions the practicality of requiring those processes under threat of address recovery. This is a concern about implementation and enforcement, not opposition to reporting abuse. · Explicitly objects to what he sees as LACNIC prescribing how an ISP handles incidents on its own network. · Explicitly supports having mechanisms to communicate abuse and request treatment. The opposition is limited to the proposed operational prescription, not the underlying reporting goal. · Ricardo explicitly opposes the abuse-contact proposal as written. He asks whether checks occur on creation, modification and periodically, and argues that quarterly checks with manual follow-up could impose excessive work. · His comparison to RIPE 2017-02 is supporting evidence in the LACNIC debate, not a separate vote on the RIPE proposal. His assumed failure rate and workload calculation are illustrative, not measured outcomes. · Opposes burdens on ISPs and LACNIC and the proposal specifying how abuse should be handled. · Disputes the characterization of other regions as having equivalent procedures; this is his comparison, not an independently verified universal fact. · Opposes the proposal as written while agreeing that abuse contacts and some validation mechanism should exist. · Rejects prescribing ISP handling or RIR/NIR validation methods; cites differences in operator scale, structure and budgets. Agreement with the objective does not reverse his stated opposition. · Opposes the text as written because he sees RIR policies as allocation criteria rather than rules for ISP operations and complaint handling. · His assertion that no RIR policy prescribes network operation is his argument, not an independently established finding. · Rejects imposing one operational procedure across differently sized and resourced ISPs, especially where noncompliance could cost an allocation. · Argues IETF recommendations are not compulsory and that abuse handling can use other mechanisms. This does not oppose handling abuse itself. · The author supports having valid abuse contacts but wants the validation timing changed, prefers operational verification details to be defined by LACNIC rather than embedded in policy, favors annual validation, and supports portal blocking after failed validation.

Mar 5, 2018

Mar 5, 2018

Mar 8, 2018

Aug 13, 2018

Aug 14, 2018

Aug 15, 2018

Aug 15, 2018

Sep 26, 2018

Simplification of the PDP

Assessment: Consistent · The retained contributions use the same oppose classification for Simplification of the PDP; no contrary position appears in the supplied record.

Conditions: Ricardo explicitly opposes the PDP reform as written. He argues that non-attendees can still raise technical objections and disputes that consensus has been a regional problem. These are his arguments rather than findings about the entire community. · Ricardo rejects the proposal as a whole, defends the forum’s role and remote-participation mechanisms, and disputes that consensus is only a count of hands. He says substantive objections at the microphone are considered. · His assertion that there have been no complaints and his assessment of adequate inclusion remain his claims; they do not settle Jordi’s criticism. Quoted pro-reform passages are excluded from Ricardo’s author projection.

Mar 14, 2018

Hola Jordi, Soy contra la propuesta como escrita. A los que no pueden ir al foro publico se les d? todavia v?rios dias para presentar puntos que tecnicamente sean justificativas para no avanzar con la pol?tica. El tema del consenso tampoco ha sido un problema en la regi?n (veo que estas con una discusi?n fuerte en el ripe). Saludos

Mar 14, 2018

Clarifications of Sub-Assignments

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The retained contribution is classified as unclear for Clarifications of Sub-Assignments and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.

Conditions: The author disputes the proposer's interpretation of the existing policy and asks that LACNIC staff's interpretation be considered, but does not explicitly support or oppose adopting LAC-2018-7.

May 2, 2018

Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users

Assessment: Consistent · The retained contributions use the same oppose classification for Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users; no contrary position appears in the supplied record.

Conditions: The author opposes the proposal because he expects the transfer mechanism to increase deaggregation and does not accept renumbering as a problem that warrants the change. · The author rejects key premises used to justify the proposal, including the asserted need and the claimed operational impact of renumbering. · The author opposes LAC-2018-8 as written and specifically objects that the proposal lacks clear criteria governing the transfer.

May 21, 2018

Hola, Estoy en contra por la raz?n de que permitir que se le transfiera el bloque ya asignado al enduser por su upstream va a provocar mucha desagregaci?n. y no soluciona ning?n problema (la renumeraci?n es algo que existe desde "siempre" y nunca ha sido un problema) saludos Ricardo Patara

May 22, 2018

Sep 5, 2018

Buen dia. Yo sigo en contra la LAC-2018-8 como escrita. No veo necesidad para para tal. Y tambi?n hay un problema de que en el texto de la misma no se indica que criterios seguir para hacer dicha transferencia. Eso debe estar en el texto para que quede claro Saludos Ricardo Patara

Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs

Assessment: Mixed · The retained contributions on Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs vary across oppose, unclear. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.

Conditions: Opposes the proposal because moving scarce space to a customer does not remove scarcity and upstream deaggregation would add routing costs. · Prefers concentrating effort on IPv6 deployment rather than further IPv4 workarounds. · Maintains opposition using a hypothetical /16 split around a customer /24 to illustrate deaggregation costs. · Considers that cost disproportionate to a small, temporary IPv4 need; the numerical example is his argument, not a measured network outcome. · Maintains opposition: customer pressure could draw operationally valuable space from an upstream rather than merely transfer unused resources. · Distinguishes commercial incentives from technical routing concerns and expects more problems than benefits. · Explicitly maintains opposition because the costs are not justified by the claimed benefit. · Rejects the cost-equivalence rebuttal in this explicitly identified LAC-2018-9 thread, referring back to his deaggregation example. · This is continuation of the existing objection, not a new or changed policy position. · Maintains opposition because commercial pressure may move valuable used space and impose deaggregation costs that technical staff recognize. · Questions what problem is solved and considers the proposal a source of additional problems. · The author objects to the proposal on deaggregation and equal-treatment grounds and challenges the asserted conservation benefit. · The author's objection is specifically grounded in deaggregation and the view that routing decisions should remain operational rather than be encouraged by this policy. · The author opposes the proposal on routing-impact, fairness, and renumbering grounds. · The author objects to relying on additional commentary outside the policy text but does not state an overall support or opposition position in this message. · The author opposes leaving the proposal's assignment rules to staff interpretation and argues that the operative text itself must be clear.

Apr 2, 2018

Apr 3, 2018

Apr 3, 2018

Apr 6, 2018

Hola Jordi, Veo que sigue insistiendo en un punto que, desde mi humilde punto de vista, no es lo m?s importante ni tampoco justifica la propuesta. Lo que estoy a comentar es que el "costo" frente al beneficio no justifica. sigo en contra y no veo necesidad para tal. saludos

Apr 6, 2018

no! no es lo mismo! mira el el ejemplo que presente acerca de los prefijos! saludos

Apr 6, 2018

May 3, 2018

May 3, 2018

May 3, 2018

May 30, 2018

cuando implementado quedar? descrito solamente lo que est? en el texto. "coment?rio adicional" tratase de "comentario" :-) saludos Ricardo Patara

May 30, 2018

Jordi, Tu mismo eres un defensor de que los textos sean lo m?s claros posibles para evitar diferentes interpretaciones. Es diferente de tener una instruci?n de como se utilizar un recurso de que como asignarlo. Dejar para la interpretaci?n del staff est? muy malo. saludos Ricardo Patara

Principles Governing the Distribution of Number Resources · Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify for Principles Governing the Distribution of Number Resources and question_or_clarify, procedural_or_neutral for Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

Nov 19, 2013

Me sorprende mirar en la pagina de lacnic que la propuesta lac-2013-02 figurar?a ya en el per?odo de "last call" http://www.lacnic.net/web/lacnic/politicas siendo que no hubo ningun a?ncio acerca de eso en la lista! que pasa? si queremos comentarios hay que llamarlos en la lista!! Saludos

Jun 4, 2014

Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements · IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify, procedural_or_neutral for Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements and question_or_clarify for IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

Jun 4, 2014

Feb 12, 2016

IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region. · Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify for IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region. and propose_alternative, procedural_or_neutral, oppose, question_or_clarify for Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

Feb 12, 2016

Mar 11, 2016

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The supplied classifications are propose_alternative, procedural_or_neutral, oppose, question_or_clarify for Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations and oppose for One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

Mar 11, 2016

Feb 3, 2017

One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC · Addenda − Resource revocation

Assessment: Consistent · The supplied classifications are oppose for One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC and oppose for Addenda − Resource revocation. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

Feb 3, 2017

Apr 26, 2017

Addenda − Resource revocation · Modify the Resource Recovery Process

Assessment: Mixed · The supplied classifications are oppose for Addenda − Resource revocation and question_or_clarify, support for Modify the Resource Recovery Process. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

Apr 26, 2017

Apr 26, 2017

Hola Edmundo, que tal? Me parece bastante interesante la propuesta. Pero una consulta. Si solamente se quita la delegaci?n Inversa pero se le permite al administrador ingresar el sistema de administraci?n de IPs no habr?a garant?as que de el no las vuelva a registrar, no? Has pensando en algo como tambi?n impedirles a los administradores que acedan al sistema? Un abrazo Ricardo Patara

Modify the Resource Recovery Process · MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS

Assessment: Mixed · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify, support for Modify the Resource Recovery Process and support, propose_alternative for MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

Apr 26, 2017

Hola Edmundo, que tal? Me parece bastante interesante la propuesta. Pero una consulta. Si solamente se quita la delegaci?n Inversa pero se le permite al administrador ingresar el sistema de administraci?n de IPs no habr?a garant?as que de el no las vuelva a registrar, no? Has pensando en algo como tambi?n impedirles a los administradores que acedan al sistema? Un abrazo Ricardo Patara

Aug 4, 2017

MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS · Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)

Assessment: Mixed · The supplied classifications are support, propose_alternative for MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS and oppose for Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR). Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

Aug 4, 2017

Jan 22, 2018

Hola, A titulo personal. Soy contra la propuesta. No me parece concreta la necesidad/problema presentado como justificativa saludos Ricardo Patara

Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR) · Minor revision to the PDP

Assessment: Mixed · The supplied classifications are oppose for Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR) and support_with_changes for Minor revision to the PDP. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

Jan 22, 2018

Hola, A titulo personal. Soy contra la propuesta. No me parece concreta la necesidad/problema presentado como justificativa saludos Ricardo Patara

Sep 14, 2018

Minor revision to the PDP · Update the policy on transfers due to mergers/acquisitions

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The supplied classifications are support_with_changes for Minor revision to the PDP and support, procedural_or_neutral, unclear for Update the policy on transfers due to mergers/acquisitions. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

Sep 14, 2018

Mar 7, 2018

Update the policy on transfers due to mergers/acquisitions · Registration and validation of abuse contact

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The supplied classifications are support, procedural_or_neutral, unclear for Update the policy on transfers due to mergers/acquisitions and question_or_clarify, oppose, support_with_changes for Registration and validation of abuse contact. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

Mar 7, 2018

Mar 5, 2018

Registration and validation of abuse contact · Simplification of the PDP

Assessment: Mixed · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify, oppose, support_with_changes for Registration and validation of abuse contact and oppose for Simplification of the PDP. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

Mar 5, 2018

Mar 14, 2018

Hola Jordi, Soy contra la propuesta como escrita. A los que no pueden ir al foro publico se les d? todavia v?rios dias para presentar puntos que tecnicamente sean justificativas para no avanzar con la pol?tica. El tema del consenso tampoco ha sido un problema en la regi?n (veo que estas con una discusi?n fuerte en el ripe). Saludos

Simplification of the PDP · Clarifications of Sub-Assignments

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The supplied classifications are oppose for Simplification of the PDP and unclear for Clarifications of Sub-Assignments. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

Mar 14, 2018

Hola Jordi, Soy contra la propuesta como escrita. A los que no pueden ir al foro publico se les d? todavia v?rios dias para presentar puntos que tecnicamente sean justificativas para no avanzar con la pol?tica. El tema del consenso tampoco ha sido un problema en la regi?n (veo que estas con una discusi?n fuerte en el ripe). Saludos

May 2, 2018

Clarifications of Sub-Assignments · Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The supplied classifications are unclear for Clarifications of Sub-Assignments and oppose for Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

May 2, 2018

May 21, 2018

Hola, Estoy en contra por la raz?n de que permitir que se le transfiera el bloque ya asignado al enduser por su upstream va a provocar mucha desagregaci?n. y no soluciona ning?n problema (la renumeraci?n es algo que existe desde "siempre" y nunca ha sido un problema) saludos Ricardo Patara

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

Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The supplied classifications are oppose for Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users and oppose, unclear for Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.

Conditions: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.

May 21, 2018

Hola, Estoy en contra por la raz?n de que permitir que se le transfiera el bloque ya asignado al enduser por su upstream va a provocar mucha desagregaci?n. y no soluciona ning?n problema (la renumeraci?n es algo que existe desde "siempre" y nunca ha sido un problema) saludos Ricardo Patara

Apr 2, 2018