BTW.Media
Daily editionStrategic Internet Intelligence
Sign InRegister

LACNIC · RIR Watchdog

Update to the Policy Development Process

Start here for the proposal-by-proposal record: what changed, why it mattered, who argued for what, how positions evolved, what was decided, and where the evidence still has gaps.

Source facts

Policy ID
LAC-2014-3
RIR
LACNIC
Official status
Implemented
Normalized status
Accepted
Introduced
Sep 9, 2014
Last source update
Oct 14, 2026
Coverage
Partial

Who actually shaped the debate?

8Total participants
7Discussion contributors
1Formal actors
10Discussion messages
6.2Effective participants
80%Top-five discussion share
3People covering 50%
5People covering 80%

Policy evolution

2
Accepted · Implemented
Sep 9, 2014
Source facts ↗

Appeals committee composition · The appeals committee composition changes from three representatives of the LACNIC community to one representative of the policy-process chairs and four representatives of the community; the Board and staff representatives remain specified.

Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.
Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.

Appeals committee convening and integration procedure · The new text adds a procedure under which the LACNIC Board organizes the committee call, identifies its representative, requests a representative from the chairs, selects four interested and active community representatives through the Policy List, and publicly announces the committee members and working plan within the five-day integration period. The old text proceeds directly from the committee composition to the committee's 30-day review period without this procedure.

Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.
Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
3
Accepted · Implemented
Sep 9, 2014
Source facts ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Source facts −
Examples of this include the direct responsibilities of LACNIC, LACNIC chairs and those of the organization's directors.
Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Examples of this include the direct responsibilities of LACNIC, LACNIC chairs and those of the organization's directors.
Source facts ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Source facts −
The maximum time allowed for reviewing and publishing the proposal on the Public Policy List shall not exceed 10 days.
Source facts ↗
Source facts +
The maximum time allowed for reviewing and publishing the proposal on the Public Policy List shall not exceed 2 weeks.
Source facts ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Source facts −
2.5 LACNIC Board of Directors [...] - Declare the removal of one or both Policy Chairs if non-fulfillment of their responsibilities affects the policy development process.
Source facts ↗
Source facts +
2.5 LACNIC Board of Directors [...] - Declare the removal of one or both Policy Chairs if non-fulfillment of their responsibilities affects the policy development process, 6 months after the last Policy Forum.
Source facts ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Source facts −
The Board shall appoint interim chair(s) within a period of 15 days, and these interim chairs will serve until the next election.
Source facts ↗
Source facts +
The Board shall appoint interim chair(s) within a period of 2 weeks, and these interim chairs will serve until the next election.
Source facts ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Source facts −
- To prepare a Public Policy Forum report and submit it to the Policy List no more than 15 days after the end of the Forum.
Source facts ↗
Source facts +
- To prepare a Public Policy Forum report and submit it to the Policy List no more than 1 week after the end of the Forum.
Source facts ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Source facts −
- To call members of the Policy List to debate the proposals presented during the Public Policy Forum but which failed to reach consensus and must be sent back for discussion no more than 15 days after the end of the Forum.
Source facts ↗
Source facts +
- To call members of the Policy List to debate the proposals presented during the Public Policy Forum but which failed to reach consensus and must be sent back for discussion no more than 1 week after the end of the Forum.
Source facts ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Source facts −
- To issue a last call for comments for those proposals that reached consensus at the Public Policy Forum no more than 15 days after the end of the Forum.
Source facts ↗
Source facts +
- To issue a last call for comments for those proposals that reached consensus at the Public Policy Forum no more than 2 weeks after the end of the Forum.
Source facts ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Source facts −
- To post the results of the last call for comments for those proposals that have reached consensus on the Policy List no more than 5 days after the last call for comments period closes.
Source facts ↗
Source facts +
- To post the results of the last call for comments for those proposals that have reached consensus on the Policy List no more than 1 week after the last call for comments period closes.
Source facts ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Source facts −
- To communicate the results of ratification by the LACNIC Board of those policies that reached consensus and received no observations during the last call for comments period, no more than 5 days after their ratification.
Source facts ↗
Source facts +
- To communicate the results of ratification by the LACNIC Board of those policies that reached consensus and received no observations during the last call for comments period, no more than 1 week after the publication of the minutes of the board´s meeting with the ratification.
Source facts ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Source facts −
X Appeals - In case of disagreement with the decisions of: - Forum chairs; - LACNIC's Board of Directors, and relating to the policy development process; or - prior appeals committees; any person that meets the following criteria may initiate an appeals process: - The person must participate in the Policy List; - The appeal must be public and submitted through the Policy List.
Source facts ↗
Source facts +
- To notify the implementation of proposals ratified by the Board on the Policy List as soon as this occurs. New text Analyze diff *In the chapters below, add:* 2.1.
Source facts ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Source facts −
The maximum time allowed for reviewing and publishing the proposal on the Public Policy List shall not exceed 10 days.
Source facts ↗
Source facts +
The maximum time allowed for reviewing and publishing the proposal on the Public Policy List shall not exceed 2 weeks.
Source facts ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Source facts −
2.5 LACNIC Board of Directors [...] - Declare the removal of one or both Policy Chairs if non-fulfillment of their responsibilities affects the policy development process.
Source facts ↗
Source facts +
2.5 LACNIC Board of Directors [...] - Declare the removal of one or both Policy Chairs if non-fulfillment of their responsibilities affects the policy development process, 6 months after the last Policy Forum.
Source facts ↗

Debate timeline

  1. Introduced

    Introduced

    Source facts ↗

  2. Official version

    1

    Accepted · Implemented

    Source facts ↗

  3. Official version

    2

    Accepted · Implemented

    Source facts ↗

  4. Official version

    3

    Accepted · Implemented

    Source facts ↗

  5. Public discussion

    [LACNIC/Politicas] Propuestas Foro de Politicas

    3 Discussion messages · 3 Entities

    Source facts ↗

  6. Official decision

    accepted

    accepted

    Source facts ↗

Entities

Freshness: Stale
  1. Alex Ojeda · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages2
    First activityJun 29, 2015
    Last activityJul 16, 2015
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies11
  2. Carlos Plasencia
    Discussion messages2
    First activityMay 10, 2015
    Last activityOct 9, 2015
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies17
    Freshness: Stale

    Identity verified: Sep 20, 2026

    LACNIC · Historical
    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 This pol
    politicas.lacnic.net

    Verified public profiles

    Discussion messages
    2
    First activity
    May 10, 2015
    Last activity
    Oct 9, 2015
    First explicit stance
    Unknown
    Latest explicit stance
    Unknown
    Stance changes
    0
    Viewpoint consistency
    Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies
    17

    First explicit stance: Unknown → Latest explicit stance: Unknown · Stance changes: 0

    Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency

    The retained record is overwhelmingly forum-chair procedure: proposal announcements, last calls, agenda summaries, consensus results, ratification notices, and implementation updates. None of the applicable policies contains a safe personal viewpoint comparison, so no across-policy consistency finding is supported.

    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.

    LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources

    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.

    LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment

    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.

    The proposal was RATIFIED. However, it will be implemented as soon as the corresponding settings will be completed in LACNIC?s system.

    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.

    LAC-2014-3: Update to the Policy Development Process

    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.

    Would you like to continue discussing this proposal or do you believe it should be abandoned?

    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.

    2015-2: Inter-RIR transfers. 17 in favor, 87 against, 33 abstentions. ABANDONED

    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.

    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?.

    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.

    2015-4: Resource Recovery Timeline. 83 in favor, 3 against, 14 abstentions. APPROVED ? The proposal is now in the last call for comments period.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    We would like to invite you all to participate by expressing your views and comments in favor or against approval of the proposal.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    LAC-2016-2: IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.

    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.

    LAC-2016-3: Remove the reference to a provider?s "multihomed or non-multihomed status".

    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.

    Proposal LAC-2016-4 has been updated to version 2.

    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.

    Proposal LAC-2016-5 has been updated to version 2.

    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.

    A new Policy Proposal has been received and assigned the following ID:LAC-2016-6.

    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.

    LAC-2016-5: Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations.

    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.

    LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources

    LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment

    1. May 10, 2015 · Procedural or neutral

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Politicas en discusion // Políticas em discussão // Policies under discussion

      se presentaran las siguientes propuestas de politicas

      Source facts ↗
    2. Oct 9, 2015 · Procedural or neutral

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Propuesta 2015-3 Retorno a lia lista para discusion

      retorna al periodo de discusion en la lista

      Source facts ↗
    Per-policy stance timelines:LAC-2013-3 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2013-4 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2014-1 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2014-2 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2014-3 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2015-1 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2015-2 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2015-3 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2015-4 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2015-5 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2015-6 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2016-1 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2016-2 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2016-3 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2016-4 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2016-5 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2016-6 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistencyLAC-2016-7 · Unknown · Insufficient evidence to assess consistency

    Total policy messages: 35

  3. Nicolas Antoniello
    Discussion messages2
    First activityJan 26, 2015
    Last activityMay 20, 2015
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies25
  4. Arturo Servin · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityOct 29, 2014
    Last activityOct 29, 2014
    First explicit stanceSupport with changes
    Latest explicit stanceSupport with changes
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies10
  5. Sergio Rojas. . . · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityOct 29, 2014
    Last activityOct 29, 2014
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies11
  6. Juan Alejo Peirano · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityOct 28, 2014
    Last activityOct 28, 2014
    First explicit stanceOppose
    Latest explicit stanceOppose
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    Other policies23
  7. Alejandro Guzman · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityOct 29, 2014
    Last activityOct 29, 2014
    First explicit stancePropose alternative
    Latest explicit stancePropose alternative
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies9
  8. RICARDO PATARA
    Discussion messages0
    First activityUnknown
    Last activityUnknown
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position stated
    Other policies25

Sources and coverage

Official policy sources

Public discussion archives

  • lacnic-politicas
    Earliest captured
    Oct 21, 1999
    Latest captured
    Oct 12, 2026
    Last refresh
    Aug 13, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    5,637
    Known gaps
    26
  • www.lacnic.net
  • lacnic-anuncios
    Earliest captured
    Aug 13, 2026
    Latest captured
    Oct 7, 2026
    Last refresh
    Oct 14, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    2,177
    Known gaps
    0
  • lacnic-ietf-lac
    Earliest captured
    May 30, 2013
    Latest captured
    Dec 30, 2015
    Last refresh
    Oct 14, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    1,133
    Known gaps
    0
  • lacnic-infofrida
    Earliest captured
    Aug 14, 2006
    Latest captured
    Sep 13, 2011
    Last refresh
    Oct 14, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    292
    Known gaps
    0
  • lacnic-iot
    Earliest captured
    Oct 6, 2015
    Latest captured
    Jul 11, 2017
    Last refresh
    Oct 14, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    373
    Known gaps
    0
  • lacnic-lacnog
    Earliest captured
    Aug 1, 2026
    Latest captured
    Oct 9, 2026
    Last refresh
    Oct 11, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    6,519
    Known gaps
    3
  • lacnic-lactf
    Earliest captured
    Apr 13, 2004
    Latest captured
    Dec 29, 2006
    Last refresh
    Oct 14, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    2,267
    Known gaps
    0
  • lacnic-seguridad
    Earliest captured
    Jan 26, 2006
    Latest captured
    Dec 28, 2007
    Last refresh
    Oct 14, 2026
    Coverage
    Source coverage is incomplete.
    Loading
    1,356
    Known gaps
    0

Coverage

Partial
Earliest captured: Oct 21, 1999
Latest captured: Oct 14, 2026

Freshness

Freshness: Stale · Last refresh:

Known gaps

  • politicas.lacnic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • www.lacnic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-politicas: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • www.lacnic.net: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-anuncios: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-ietf-lac: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-infofrida: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-iot: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-lacnog: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-lactf: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.
  • lacnic-seguridad: Source coverage is incomplete. · The source boundary has not yet been reached.