LACNIC · RIR Watchdog
One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC
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-2017-2
- RIR
- LACNIC
- Official status
- Abandoned
- Normalized status
- Abandoned
- Introduced
- Feb 2, 2017
- Last source update
- Sep 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Partial
Who actually shaped the debate?
Policy evolution
Rationale for one-way interregional IPv4 transfers · The new version substantially expands the rationale from regional scarcity and limited intra-regional supply to include RIR IPv4 pool exhaustion, delayed commercial IPv6 implementation, economic and developmental impacts, and the asserted relationship between acquiring IPv4 resources and increased IPv6 use.
Source facts −
LACNIC's transfer policies allow only intra-regional transfers. Thus, transfers depend on the willingness of LACNIC members to offer their excess resources. Given the current demand, this explains the limited amount of resources offered for transfer.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Section 2.3.2.18.3 — verification of the transferring organization · The old version states only the general one-way interregional transfer concept and does not supply section-by-section amendment language. The new version proposes that LACNIC verify holders in its own region while accepting holder verification from another RIR whose policies allow transfers to LACNIC.
Source facts −
Current text Because the LACNIC region has received less IPv4 assignments, there is little in terms of excess resource inventSource facts ↗
Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Section 2.3.2.18.4 — public transfer-log fields · The new version adds proposed transfer-log language that identifies the transferring organization and requires the origin RIR to be recorded; the old version provides no corresponding section-level amendment.
Source facts −
Current text Because the LACNIC region has received less IPv4 assignments, there is little in terms of excess resource inventSource facts ↗
Source facts +
Proposed text: 2.3.2.18.4 (v.1).- LACNIC shall maintain a publicly accessible transfer log of all IPv4 address block transfers registered before LACNIC. This log shall specify the date on which each transaction took place, the transferring organization, the origin RIR, the receiving organization and the block that wSource facts ↗
Section 2.3.2.18.6 — one-year subsequent-transfer restriction · The new version adds proposed language applying the one-year restriction to blocks previously transferred under this policy and describes the period as running from the date the operation is recorded in the transfer log; the old version provides no corresponding section-level amendment.
Source facts −
Current text Because the LACNIC region has received less IPv4 assignments, there is little in terms of excess resource inventSource facts ↗
Source facts +
. Proposed text: 2.3.2.18.6.(v.1)- A block previously transferred under this policy may not subsequently be transferred for a period of one year as of the date on which the operation is recorded inSource facts ↗
Proposal rationale · The rationale replaces reliance on studies asserting that IPv4 acquisition correlates with greater IPv6 utilization with an emphasis on unrecorded inter-regional transfers, registry-data accuracy, and temporary relief for operators receiving addresses into the region.
Source facts −
ch RIR. Recent studies conducted by RIPE and ARIN demonstrate that operators that acquire IPv4 resources exhibit greater growth in terms of IPv6 utilization, which indicates that the more an operator grows its IPv4 network, the more it usSource facts ↗
Source facts +
One of the key tasks of Regional Registries is maintain up-to-date and valid information, so that it will be useful for the purposes for which it is required. The existence of a policy that allows transferring address blocks from other regions to the LAC region will make it easier to maintain the Registry information, while temporarily alleviating some of the problems faced by operators transferring addresses into the region.Source facts ↗
Section 2.3.2.18 title and transfer scope · The newer proposal adds an amendment renaming the section from transfers “within the LACNIC Region” to transfers “within and towards the LACNIC Region”; the older amendment text begins with subsection 2.3.2.18.3 and does not include this title amendment in the corresponding location.
Source facts +
Current text: 2.3.2.18. Transfer of IPv4 Blocks within the LACNIC Region Proposed Text: 2.3.2.18. Transfer of IPv4 Blocks within and towards the LACNICSource facts ↗
Section 2.3.2.18.4 transfer log · The proposed transfer-log provision changes the stated place of registration from “before LACNIC” to “before the organization” and changes “transaction” to “operation”; the required origin-RIR field remains present.
Source facts −
ferred. Proposed text: 2.3.2.18.4 (v.1).- LACNIC shall maintain a publicly accessible transfer log of all IPv4 address block transfers registered before LACNIC. This log shall specify the date on which each transaction took place, the transferring organization, the origin RIR, the receiving organization and the block that was tranSource facts ↗
Source facts +
erred. Proposed Text: 2.3.2.18.4. LACNIC shall maintain a publicly accessible transfer log of all IPv4 address block transfers registered before the organization. This log shall specify the date on which each operation took place, the transferring organization, the origin RIR, the receiving organization, and the block that was tSource facts ↗
Debate timeline
Public discussion
[LACNIC/Politicas] ANÁLISIS DE IMPACTO: LAC-2017-1 y LAC-2017-2 / ANALISE DE IMPACTO: LAC-2017-1 e LAC-2017-2 / IMPACT ANALYSIS: LAC-2017-1 and LAC-2017-2
2 Discussion messages · 2 Entities
Source facts ↗Public discussion
[LACNIC/Politicas] ANÁLISIS DE IMPACTO: LAC-2017-1 y LAC-2017-2 / ANALISE DE IMPACTO: LAC-2017-1 e LAC-2017-2 / IMPACT ANALYSIS: LAC-2017-1 and LAC-2017-2
5 Discussion messages · 3 Entities
Source facts ↗Public discussion
[LACNIC/Politicas] Comentarios sobre propuestas en discusión // Comentários sobre propostas em discussão // Comments on proposals in discussion
2 Discussion messages · 2 Entities
Source facts ↗
Entities
- Gianina Pensky · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages13First activityFeb 24, 2017Last activityAug 30, 2017First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies23
- Juan Alejo Peirano · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages4First activityApr 20, 2017Last activitySep 23, 2017First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies23
- Discussion messages4First activityApr 17, 2017Last activityApr 20, 2017First explicit stanceSupportLatest explicit stanceSupportStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies24
- Unknown · Public sources found; identity verification pendingDiscussion messages3First activityFeb 2, 2017Last activityApr 2, 2018First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies19
- Daniel Miroli · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityApr 21, 2017Last activityApr 21, 2017First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies1
- Paola Perez · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityJan 31, 2018Last activityJan 31, 2018First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies17
- Discussion messages1First activityFeb 3, 2017Last activityFeb 3, 2017First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies25
- Discussion messages0First activityUnknownLast activityUnknownFirst explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies0
- Discussion messages0First activityUnknownLast activityUnknownFirst explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies0
Sources and coverage
Official policy sources
Public discussion archives
- lacnic-politicas
- Earliest captured
- Oct 21, 1999
- Latest captured
- Sep 1, 2026
- Last refresh
- Aug 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 3,058
- Known gaps
- 54,358
- www.lacnic.net
- lacnic-anuncios
- Earliest captured
- Aug 13, 2026
- Latest captured
- Sep 1, 2026
- Last refresh
- Sep 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 1,547
- Known gaps
- 0
- lacnic-ietf-lac
- Earliest captured
- Unknown
- Latest captured
- Unknown
- Last refresh
- Sep 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 496
- Known gaps
- 0
- lacnic-infofrida
- Earliest captured
- Unknown
- Latest captured
- Unknown
- Last refresh
- Sep 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 306
- Known gaps
- 0
- lacnic-iot
- Earliest captured
- Unknown
- Latest captured
- Unknown
- Last refresh
- Sep 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 341
- Known gaps
- 0
- lacnic-lacnog
- Earliest captured
- Aug 1, 2026
- Latest captured
- Sep 11, 2026
- Last refresh
- Sep 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 1,613
- Known gaps
- 0
- lacnic-lactf
- Earliest captured
- Unknown
- Latest captured
- Unknown
- Last refresh
- Sep 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 1,111
- Known gaps
- 0
- lacnic-seguridad
- Earliest captured
- Unknown
- Latest captured
- Unknown
- Last refresh
- Sep 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 1,071
- Known gaps
- 0
Coverage
Partial
Earliest captured: Oct 21, 1999
Latest captured: Sep 13, 2026
Freshness
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.
