Resource Recovery Timeline

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

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?.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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