LACNIC · RIR Watchdog
Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for the Policy List
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-2018-13
- RIR
- LACNIC
- Official status
- Abandoned
- Normalized status
- Abandoned
- Introduced
- Apr 28, 2021
- Last source update
- Oct 14, 2026
- Coverage
- Partial
Who actually shaped the debate?
Policy evolution
Scope examples · The new text expressly states that the listed examples of out-of-scope discussion are illustrative only, clarifying that the prohibition is not limited to those examples.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Election-related list activity · The old text specifically addressed candidates for PDP chair and expressly mentioned voting dates and results; the new text refers more generally to candidates and the voting procedure, requires the remaining procedural steps to occur outside the list, and treats nominations and expressions for or against candidates as examples of prohibited activity.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Cultural and language considerations · The old text required cultural and language considerations when deciding on moderation of a participant; the new text applies those considerations when deciding on potential AUP violations.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Responses to improper messages · The old text treated responding to an improper third-party message as a violation; the new text limits this rule to inappropriate responses to inappropriate third-party messages.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Contact harvesting and honeypot checks · Both texts prohibit collecting participants' contact information and using it for spam, but the new text additionally authorizes LACNIC to periodically add external-domain email addresses as a honeypot to check for this conduct.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Subscriber and election reminders · The old text required an 'Election Silence' reminder before each community electoral process. The new text omits that requirement and instead requires any subscription reminders that are sent to remind subscribers of the AUP.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Temporary list moderation · The old text began with a general rule that the Public Policy List may not be moderated, subject to a very exceptional temporary-moderation provision. The new text retains the exceptional authority but omits that express general prohibition, describes the eight-hour limit as approximate, and adds that staff will support the chairs.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Election penalties for suspension evasion · The old text made disqualification as a candidate and loss of nomination rights mandatory for attempted fraud by a suspended participant, applying to any LACNIC electoral process for four years. The new text makes those consequences discretionary by stating that violations may result in loss of candidate and nomination rights in election processes for four years.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Authorization for non-policy discussions · The blanket exclusion of discussions outside the list's policy scope was changed to allow such discussions when the chairs have made a prior and explicit decision.
Source facts −
Any discussion outside this scope, including but not limited to, event announcements, calls for papers, advertising of any kind (including electoral advertising), expressions of support for candidates and, in general, any topic that is not explicitly policy-related, is outside the scope of this list.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Except in case of prior and explicit decision of the chairs, any discussion not in line with this purpose,Source facts ↗
Private-message confidentiality · The violations list was expanded to prohibit sending or forwarding private messages unless the involved parties have given prior and explicit consent.
Source facts −
d hominem attacks, foul language and disrespect are contrary to the AUP.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Ad hominem attacks, foul language, disrespect, and the sending (or forwarding) of private messages (unless with the prior and explicit consent of the parties involved).Source facts ↗
Reporting suspected violations · The requirement to report suspected violations directly to the chairs was strengthened to require reporting them exclusively to the chairs.
Definition of spam · The prohibition on collecting contact information to send spam now expressly defines spam as any message not previously and explicitly requested.
Source facts −
ther violations of the AUP include using the list to collect participants’ contact information and using such information to send spam.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Use of the list to collect participants’ contact information and using such information for sending spam (any message that has not been previously and explicitly requested).Source facts ↗
Fraud and penalty evasion · The former violation was limited to attempted fraud by a suspended participant, exemplified by using an alternative address; the new text covers any attempt to commit fraud or bypass a penalty, including use of alternative mail addresses.
Source facts −
) Attempted fraud by a suspended participant, e.g. the use of an alternative mail address, is also considered a violation of the AUP.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
i) Any attempt to commit fraud or bypass a penalty, such as the use of alternative mail addresses.Source facts ↗
Chair authority to identify additional unacceptable uses · The new version expressly authorizes the chairs to determine that actions beyond the enumerated violations are unacceptable uses of the list.
Source facts −
) Attempted fraud by a suspended participant, e.g. the use of an alternative mail address, is also considered a violation of the AUP. j) Considering the global nature of list participants, when deciding on potential violations of the AUP, the chairs will take into account relevant cultural aspects and language differences.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Based on the above, the chairs may determine what other actions also constitute unacceptable uses of the list.Source facts ↗
Censorship of archived posts · The archive rule changed from an unqualified statement that posts may not be censored to a statement specifically that they may not be censored by LACNIC.
Source facts −
ailing list posts are archived, they are publicly available and may not be censored.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
All mailing list posts are archived, they are publicly available and may not be censored by LACNIC.Source facts ↗
Application to communication mechanisms other than mailing lists · The new version extends the entire policy to forums, applications, and other mechanisms under the same or technically equivalent terms; the old text proceeded directly from the mailing-list moderation rule to enforcement without such an extension.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
If additional mechanisms are used other than a mailing list (forums, applications, etc.), the entire content of this policy will also apply, under the same or technically equivalent terms.Source facts ↗
Trigger for four-year election penalties · The four-year loss of candidacy and nomination rights was changed from being triggered by violations of old item i, concerning attempted fraud by a suspended participant, to violations relating to election processes.
Source facts −
iolations of item i) above may result in the loss of the right to be a candidate, as well as the right to nominate candidates, in election processes for four (4) years.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Violations relating to election processes may result in the loss of the right to participate as a candidate, as well as the right to nominate candidates, in election processes for four (4) years.Source facts ↗
Four-year election penalty for repeat violations · The new version additionally permits the four-year election-related penalty for repeat violations after the offender has received a penalty of at least one year.
Source facts −
iolations of item i) above may result in the loss of the right to be a candidate, as well as the right to nominate candidates, in election processes for four (4) years.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
This penalty may also apply in case of repeat violations once the offender has been penalized for at least one year.Source facts ↗
Rationale: participant knowledge of rules and penalties · The rationale changes the statement that participants “must” have explicit knowledge of permitted conduct and penalties to say that they “should” have such knowledge.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Temporary moderation duration · The moderation rule replaces the approximate maximum message delay of eight hours with a requirement that moderation last only for brief, defined periods and that messages not be delayed longer than strictly necessary.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Application of the AUP to additional communication systems · The old text applies the entire policy whenever mechanisms other than a mailing list are used. The new text instead describes the list as the current official PDP communication means and extends the AUP to future systems that replicate the list by automatically exchanging all posts with it, under the same or technically equivalent conditions.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Chair discretion in classifying listed violations · The new text expressly makes classification of the enumerated conduct as AUP violations subject to the discretion of the chairs; the old enumeration contains no equivalent discretion qualifier.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Evidence condition for contact harvesting, spam, fraud, and penalty evasion · The new text places contact-information harvesting and spam, as well as fraud or attempts to bypass a penalty, under an explicit “when evidence exists” condition. The old text lists these acts as violations without that express condition.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Posting suspensions for first and second violations · The old text automatically imposes a one-month suspension for a first violation and requires extension to one year for a second violation. The new text makes both consequences discretionary: a first violation may result in a one-month suspension, and a second may extend it up to one year.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Election-related violations and penalties · The old text permits a four-year loss of candidate-participation and nomination rights for election-related violations and allows the same penalty for repeat violations after at least a one-year penalty. The new text characterizes election-related violations as extremely serious, sets the stated loss of rights at two years, and allows up to four years for repeated violations.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Implementation when mailing-list technology is not ready · The new Additional information adds a staged implementation approach: it states that technical limitations should not prevent effectiveness upon consensus, permits initially distributing the AUP without immediately restricting posting, and defers mandatory acceptance for continued posting until the system is ready. The corresponding old Additional information ends after describing distribution and acceptance and contains no such fallback.
Source facts −
Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Subscriber acceptance requirements · The subscriber-specific process of sending new subscribers a link and requiring two checked confirmations is replaced by a general obligation for LACNIC to implement a system ensuring that subscribers read the PDP, especially the AUP, and confirm acceptance; subscribers who decline are limited to receiving messages.
Source facts −
chairs. A link to the PDP and the text of the AUP will be sent to each new list subscriber, who must explicitly check their acceptance. Until confirming this link by checking both options, the subscriber will only be able to receive messages fromSource facts ↗
Source facts +
e chairs. LACNIC shall implement a system that guarantees that subscribers will read the PDP (and especially the AUP) and confirm its acceptance. Should they choose not to do so, they will only be able to receive messages fromSource facts ↗
Detection of accounts used to violate the AUP · The fixed requirement to periodically add external email addresses as honeypots is replaced by a broader requirement to incorporate detection systems insofar as possible, with external-address honeypots retained only as an example.
Source facts −
erences. LACNIC will periodically add different email addresses outside its domains to be used as aSource facts ↗
Source facts +
ferences. LACNIC shall incorporate systems that allow detecting, in so far as possible, the accounts used to breach the AUP. By way of an example, emails that are not part of the LACNIC domains may periodically be added to the list to serve as aSource facts ↗
Chair discretion in classifying violations · Conduct listed in section 8.2 changes from being considered violations to conduct that may be considered violations at the chairs' discretion.
Source facts −
icy List At the discretion of the chairs, the following are considered violations ofSource facts ↗
Source facts +
licy List At the discretion of the chairs, the following may be considered violations oSource facts ↗
Chair discretion over posting suspensions · Express chair discretion is moved from longer suspensions for successive violations to the initial one-month suspension and its extension for a second violation; the successive-violation sentence no longer separately states that discretion.
Source facts −
erences. The first violation of the AUP may result in a temporary suspension of the offender's right to post to the list for a period of one (1) month, which may be extended up to one (1) year in case of a second violation. At the discretion of the chairs, successive violations may result in longer susSource facts ↗
Source facts +
ferences. At the discretion of the chairs, the first violation of the AUP may result in a temporary suspension of the offender's right to post to the list for a period of one (1) month, which may be extended up to one (1) year in case of a second violation. Successive violations may result in longer suSource facts ↗
Scope of election-related participation penalties · The election processes in which candidacy and nomination rights may be lost are specified as PDP election processes rather than election processes generally.
Source facts −
ensions. Violations relating to election processes are considered extremely serious and may result in the loss of the right to participate as a candidate, as well as of the right to nominate candidates, in election processes for two (2) years and for up to four (4) years in case of repeated viSource facts ↗
Source facts +
pensions. Violations relating to election processes are considered extremely serious and may result in the loss of the right to participate as a candidate, as well as of the right to nominate candidates, in PDP election processes for two (2) years and for up to four (4) years in case of repeated vSource facts ↗
Implementation for existing subscribers and approval condition · The implementation provision requiring consensus, Board ratification, and an emailed acceptance workflow is replaced by a requirement for a mechanism covering existing subscribers without distinguishing their participation from that of new subscribers.
Source facts −
rmation If this proposal achieves consensus, once it is ratified by the Board, this text will be emailed to all Public Policy List subscribers along with a link to a page where they will have to explicitly check their acceptance of the AUP and confirm that they are familiar with the PDP. Until confirming this link by checking both options, the subscriber will only be able to receive messages from tSource facts ↗
Source facts +
formation To implement this proposal, LACNIC must establish a mechanism for existing subscribers to receive and accept the AUP and the PDP such that no distinction is made between their participation and that of new suSource facts ↗
Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
This moderation affects the openness of the list and especially its dynamics, two essential features of the Policy Development Process, which specifies that the list must be “completely open.” Any form of moderation constitutes censorship, even if only temporary, and therefore breaches the principle of openness. Current text N/A New text Analyze diff (Note: The following text would be added at the end of the current PDP.) 8.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
The LACNIC Community Code of Conduct (https://www.lacnic.net/4038/1/lacnic/codigo-de-conducta-de-la-comunidad-de-lacnic) specifies the following: “In the case of the mailing lists, acceptable use policies may apply that establish standards in addition to those specified in this Code.Source facts ↗
Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
Current text N/A New text Analyze diff (Note: The following text would be added at the end of the current PDP.) 8.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Current text N/A New text Analyze diff (Note: The following text would be added to the current PDP, possibly at the end of the existing text, at the discretion of LACNIC.) 8.Source facts ↗
Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
Except in case of prior and explicit decision of the chairs, any discussion not in line with this purpose, such as event announcements, calls for papers, advertising of any kind (including electoral propaganda), expressions of support for candidates and, in general, any topic that is not explicitly policy-related, is outside the scope of this list.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
Only the chairs and/or LACNIC staff may call for and/or announce candidates and the voting procedure.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
The remaining steps of the procedure will necessarily take place off the list.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
By way of example, candidate nominations, expressions for or against a candidate or other similar actions are not allowed on the list.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Validated evidence is unavailable.Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
Only the chairs may issue a warning to those in violation of the AUP and take the corresponding actions, announcing their decision through the list.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Only the chairs may issue a warning to those in violation of the AUP and take the appropriate actions, announcing their decision through the list Any suspected violation must be reported exclusively to the chairs.Source facts ↗
Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
LACNIC shall implement a system that guarantees that subscribers will read the PDP (and especially the AUP) and confirm its acceptance.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
LACNIC shall implement a system that guarantees that subscribers will read the PDP and the AUP, confirming their acceptance.Source facts ↗
Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
If subscription reminders are sent, such messages must also remind subscribers of the AUP.” Likewise, at the bottom of each message, a link will be included to allow list subscribers to manage their subscription preferences.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
If subscription reminders are sent, such messages must also remind subscribers of the AUP.Source facts ↗
Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
By way of an example, emails that are not part of the LACNIC domains may periodically be added to the list to serve as a honeypot.Source facts ↗
Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.
Source facts −
Mailing list posts are archived, they are publicly available and may not be censored by LACNIC.Source facts ↗
Debate timeline
Public discussion
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2018-13
3 Discussion messages · 1 Entities
Source facts ↗
Entities
- Discussion messages3First activityAug 19, 2020Last activityAug 19, 2020First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies5Freshness: Stale
Last research attempt: Sep 27, 2026
Identity verified: Sep 27, 2026
LACNIC · Historical CEO of LACNIC between 2002 and 2014.
www.internetsociety.orgInternet Society · Historical Raúl Echeberría will join the organization in the new position of Vice President, Global Engagement.
www.internetsociety.orgVerified public profiles
- Discussion messages
- 3
- First activity
- Aug 19, 2020
- Last activity
- Aug 19, 2020
- First explicit stance
- Oppose
- Latest explicit stance
- Oppose
- Stance changes
- 0
- Viewpoint consistency
- Consistent
- Other policies
- 5
First explicit stance: Oppose → Latest explicit stance: Oppose · Stance changes: 0
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
Across these 23 messages on six proposals, from June 2020 to April 2021, the participant consistently tests new requirements against a demonstrated problem, community self-management and the RIR's number-resource mission. Opposition to particular procedures or an IPv6 transfer requirement coexists with support for targeted process reform and IPv6 deployment. No unexplained reversal is evident in this set; this is not a finding about the participant's entire history or the final versions of every proposal.
Assessment: Consistent · On the PDP chair election procedure, the participant maintains opposition to the more complex proposal while accepting that prior mailing-list participation could be required through a narrow amendment. That exception qualifies the objection; it does not reverse it.
Conditions: The preferred approach preserves community self-management and requires a clear reason to replace the existing procedure. · The evidence concerns these June 2020 exchanges, not approval or rejection of every later version.
Porque el mecanismo actual es mucho m?s basado en la comunidad. Es la propia comunidad que se autogestiona.
Alcanzar?a con una propuesta que solamente agregue este punto espec?fico.
Como dije antes. Bueno y simple, doblemente bueno.
Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for the Policy List
Assessment: Consistent · Opposition to a new policy-list acceptable-use policy rests on the view that existing tools can handle the incidents described. The participant leaves room for additional tools if an unresolved gap is demonstrated, rather than denying that incidents occurred.
Conditions: The assessment of existing remedies is the participant's stated view, not an independently established measure of their effectiveness. · The objection is to adding a general policy for the cited problems under the circumstances discussed.
Mi opini?n es que no se necesita una PUA, por lo cual ni siquiera debo comentar el punto 2.
Si en alg?n momento queda evidente que existen problemas que no se pueden resolver con las herramientas disponibles (por ej. el c?digo de conducta), tendr?a sentido desde mi punto de vista, buscar nuevas herramientas, pero no creo que sea el caso en este momento.
No se puede hacer una pol?tica general para resolver temas puntuales.
Assessment: Consistent · Support for making proposals working documents concerns a way to focus discussion and address repeated, unsupported proposals. It remains support for the problem and direction, with the choice of mechanism open; the participant explicitly treats effects on participation as speculative.
Conditions: A process change must preserve the freedom to propose and discuss ideas. · These messages do not establish that the proposed mechanism improves participation or endorse every clause.
Ser? esta u otra propuesta, eso ya lo veremos, pero el concepto es muy apropiado.
Como no lo conozco, lo ?nico que puedo hacer es especular.
La propuesta de Arturo es una opci?n. Si esa opci?n no es la mejor para algunos, hay que buscar otra, pero el problema hay que resolverlo.
Assessment: Consistent · The two early responses on improving the PDP welcome combining alternative approaches and including a broad range of views. They support collaborative process design, without resolving the details of a final proposal.
Conditions: Combining ideas is not equivalent to endorsing every provision of either proposal. · Only these two early contributions support this finding.
Tal vez deber?an trabajar en una combinaci?n de ambas propuestas.
Hagamos lo posible por incluir tantas visiones como sea posible.
Add IPv6 operational as a requirement for IPv4 transfers
Assessment: Consistent · The participant supports wider IPv6 deployment but repeatedly rejects making IPv6 operation a condition of IPv4 transfers. The dispute concerns the means, expected effect and proper scope of resource policy, not the IPv6 objective or a categorical rejection of operational requirements.
Conditions: The participant accepts that policies can impose requirements and affect markets, while disputing the appropriate trade-off in this case. · Training, coordination and operator engagement are preferred approaches in these messages; their comparative effectiveness is not proven here.
comparto el esp?ritu que fundamenta la propuesta pero NO la apoyo
No apoyo esta pol?tica porque no me parece el camino adecuado
La discusi?n se basa en donde colocar el punto de equilibrio (o el trade off) y cuales requerimientos apuntan al uso eficiente del recurso que se asigna y cuales implican otro tipo de obligaciones.
Non-Competition Between Proposals
Assessment: Consistent · Opposition to non-competition between proposals remains consistent with treating policy-list contributions as freely usable community work. The participant distinguishes those contributions from separately published research whose author may retain intellectual-property rights; that distinction is not a reversal on ownership of policy proposals.
Conditions: Attribution remains appropriate even where policy contributions are freely reusable. · The distinction addresses policy contributions and separately published research, not every possible intellectual-property dispute.
Estoy totalmente en contra de esta propuesta.
Creo que las contribuciones que se hacen en esta lista en relaci?n a pol?ticas de manejo de recursos de numeraci?n de Internet, deben ser p?blicas y de uso libre de la comunidad.
El autor puede publicar el art?culo en otro lado, aplicar las reglas de propiedad intelectual que le parezcan m?s conveniente y luego hacer una referencia a esa publicaci?n desde la propuesta de pol?tica.
Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for the Policy List · Adoption of policy proposals for discussion at the Public Policy Forum, Discussion List and call for consensus as working documents.
Assessment: Consistent · Rejecting a new acceptable-use policy while supporting discussion-process reform is a qualified distinction: the participant sees existing remedies as adequate in the former case and an unresolved agenda problem in the latter. The shared criterion is a concrete need for change, not opposition to all procedures.
Conditions: The existence and scale of each problem are the participant's assessments in these exchanges. · Support for an agenda remedy remains open to alternatives and does not establish its effect on participation.
Si en alg?n momento queda evidente que existen problemas que no se pueden resolver con las herramientas disponibles (por ej. el c?digo de conducta), tendr?a sentido desde mi punto de vista, buscar nuevas herramientas, pero no creo que sea el caso en este momento.
La propuesta de Arturo es una opci?n. Si esa opci?n no es la mejor para algunos, hay que buscar otra, pero el problema hay que resolverlo.
Modification of the PDP to improve the quality of proposals and increase participation in the policy development process · Non-Competition Between Proposals
Assessment: Consistent · Encouraging authors to combine PDP ideas fits the later rejection of exclusive control over policy-list contributions. Both positions favor collective policy development, while leaving room for attribution and rights in separately published research.
Conditions: This comparison does not treat every form of intellectual property as incompatible with open participation. · It describes the positions in the cited exchanges, not a universal rule attributed to the participant.
Tal vez deber?an trabajar en una combinaci?n de ambas propuestas.
Hagamos lo posible por incluir tantas visiones como sea posible.
Creo que las contribuciones que se hacen en esta lista en relaci?n a pol?ticas de manejo de recursos de numeraci?n de Internet, deben ser p?blicas y de uso libre de la comunidad.
- Aug 19, 2020 · Oppose
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2018-13
1 - Se necesita una Pol?tica de Uso Aceptable de esta lista? … Mi respuesta a la pregunta 1, es No. Mi opini?n es que no se necesita una PUA, por lo cual ni siquiera debo comentar el punto 2. … Me parece una sobre ingenier?a para resolver un problema que a mi juicio no existe. Si en alg?n momento queda evidente que existen problemas que no se pueden resolver con las herramientas disponibles (por ej. el c?digo de conducta), tendr?a sentido desde mi punto de vista, buscar nuevas herramientas, pero no creo que sea el caso en este momento.
Source facts ↗ - Aug 19, 2020 · Oppose
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2018-13
Creo que fui claro en porque pienso que no se necesita la PUA. Es tan claro como eso. Creo que es una pol?tica que intenta resolver problemas que no existen generando reglas burocr?ticas innecesarias.
Source facts ↗ - Aug 19, 2020 · Oppose
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2018-13
No se puede hacer una pol?tica general para resolver temas puntuales. … Me parece que mi posici?n ya est? clara y no intento convencerte.
Source facts ↗
Per-policy stance timelines:LAC-2018-13 · Oppose · ConsistentLAC-2019-7 · Oppose · ConsistentLAC-2020-1 · Oppose · ConsistentLAC-2020-5 · Support with changes · ConsistentLAC-2020-7 · Propose alternative · ConsistentLAC-2021-2 · Oppose · ConsistentTotal policy messages: 23
- Discussion messages1First activityApr 18, 2019Last activityApr 18, 2019First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies39
- Discussion messages1First activityJul 5, 2019Last activityJul 5, 2019First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies2
- Jordi Palet Martinez · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages0First activityUnknownLast activityUnknownFirst explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies0
- Edwin Salazar · Identity unresolvedDiscussion 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
- Oct 12, 2026
- Last refresh
- Aug 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 5,652
- 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
- 2,185
- 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
- 6,536
- 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
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.
