Skip to main content

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?

5Total participants
3Discussion contributors
2Formal actors
5Discussion messages
2.3Effective participants
100%Top-five discussion share
1People covering 50%
2People covering 80%

Policy evolution

2
Abandoned · Abandoned
Apr 28, 2021
Source facts ↗

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

3
Abandoned · Abandoned
Apr 28, 2021
Source facts ↗

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

4
Abandoned · Abandoned
Apr 28, 2021
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

5
Abandoned · Abandoned
Apr 28, 2021
Source facts ↗

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

6
Abandoned · Abandoned
Apr 28, 2021
Source facts ↗

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate timeline

  1. Public discussion

    [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2018-13

    3 Discussion messages · 1 Entities

    Source facts ↗
  2. Introduced

    Introduced

    Source facts ↗
  3. Official version

    1

    Abandoned · Abandoned

    Source facts ↗
  4. Official version

    2

    Abandoned · Abandoned

    Source facts ↗
  5. Official version

    3

    Abandoned · Abandoned

    Source facts ↗
  6. Official version

    4

    Abandoned · Abandoned

    Source facts ↗
  7. Official version

    5

    Abandoned · Abandoned

    Source facts ↗
  8. Official version

    6

    Abandoned · Abandoned

    Source facts ↗
  9. Official decision

    abandoned

    abandoned

    Source facts ↗

Entities

Freshness: Stale
  1. Discussion messages3
    First activityAug 19, 2020
    Last activityAug 19, 2020
    First explicit stanceOppose
    Latest explicit stanceOppose
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    Other policies5
    Freshness: Stale

    Last research attempt: Sep 27, 2026

    Identity verified: Sep 27, 2026

    LACNIC · Historical
    CEO of LACNIC between 2002 and 2014.
    www.internetsociety.org
    Internet Society · Historical
    Raúl Echeberría will join the organization in the new position of Vice President, Global Engagement.
    www.internetsociety.org

    Verified 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.

    PDP Chair Election Procedure

    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.

    Adoption of policy proposals for discussion at the Public Policy Forum, Discussion List and call for consensus as working documents.

    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.

    Modification of the PDP to improve the quality of proposals and increase participation in the policy development process

    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.

    1. 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 ↗
    2. 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 ↗
    3. 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 ↗

    Total policy messages: 23

  2. Discussion messages1
    First activityApr 18, 2019
    Last activityApr 18, 2019
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position stated
    Other policies39
  3. Discussion messages1
    First activityJul 5, 2019
    Last activityJul 5, 2019
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies2
  4. Jordi Palet Martinez · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages0
    First activityUnknown
    Last activityUnknown
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position stated
    Other policies0
  5. Edwin Salazar · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages0
    First activityUnknown
    Last activityUnknown
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position stated
    Other 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

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.