LACNIC · RIR Watchdog
Update the policy on transfers due to mergers/acquisitions
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-2018-2
- RIR
- LACNIC
- Official status
- Abandoned
- Normalized status
- Abandoned
- Introduced
- Feb 7, 2018
- Last source update
- Oct 14, 2026
- Coverage
- Partial
Who actually shaped the debate?
Policy evolution
One-year restriction following a prior transfer · The restriction was narrowed. The old wording covered blocks previously transferred under either section 2.3.2.17 or 2.3.2.18 and prohibited another transfer generally for one year. The new wording covers blocks previously transferred under section 2.3.2.17 and prohibits transfer under section 2.3.2.18 for one year.
Source facts −
. - A block that has previously been transferred under sections 2.3.2.17 or 2.3.2.18 may not be transferred again for a period of one year as of the date on which the previous transfer was concluded. This also applies to sub-blocks, i.e., any group of addresses contained in the block that is transferrSource facts ↗
Source facts +
. - A block that has previously been transferred under section 2.3.2.17, may not be transferred again under section 2.3.2.18 for a period of one year as of the date on which the previous transfer was concluded. This also applies to sub-blocks, i.e., any group of addresses contained in the block that is transferrSource facts ↗
Restriction following initial or additional allocation or assignment · The waiting period was reduced from three years to one year, and the prohibition was narrowed from transfers generally to transfers under section 2.3.2.17.
Source facts −
d. - Blocks and sub-blocks from initial or additional allocations or assignments received directly from LACNIC or its NIRs may not be transferred for a period of three years as of their date of allocation or assignmeSource facts ↗
Source facts +
d. - Blocks and sub-blocks from initial or additional allocations or assignments received directly from LACNIC or its NIRs may not be transferred under section 2.3.2.17 for a period of one year as of their date of allocation or assignmeSource facts ↗
Additional information about the adjustment · The new version adds a statement that, according to comments, the proposal was adjusted to remove the restriction on transferring a block again under section 2.3.2.17; the old version contained no corresponding explanation.
Source facts +
t. Additional information According to comments, the proposal was adjusted to remove the restriction to transfer one block again under section 2 2.3.2.17 (Mergers, Acquisitions or Sales of ISPs or End UseSource facts ↗
One-year restriction on subsequent transfers · The old text prohibited a block transferred under section 2.3.2.17 from being transferred under section 2.3.2.18 for one year from the prior transfer's conclusion and applied that prohibition to all sub-blocks. The new text instead prohibits retransferring the block in full for one year and expressly allows transfers of up to 20% of its addresses during that period; it does not state the prior conclusion-date trigger.
Source facts −
- A block that has previously been transferred under section 2.3.2.17, may not be transferred again under section 2.3.2.18 for a period of one year as of the date on which the previous transfer was concluded. This also applies to sub-blocks, i.e., any group of addresses contained in the block that is transferred.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
2.3.2.17.2 - A block that has previously been transferred under this policy may not be transferred again in full for a period of one year. 2.3.2.17.2.1 – During this one-year period, only transfers of up to 20% of the addresses of a transferred block will be allowed.Source facts ↗
Holding period for resources received directly from LACNIC or its NIRs · The old text imposed a one-year waiting period before blocks or sub-blocks from initial or additional allocations or assignments received directly from LACNIC or its NIRs could be transferred under section 2.3.2.17. That restriction is absent from the complete replacement paragraph in the new text.
Source facts −
- Blocks and sub-blocks from initial or additional allocations or assignments received directly from LACNIC or its NIRs may not be transferred under section 2.3.2.17 for a period of one year as of their date of allocation or assignment.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Add a paragraph at the end of section 2.3.2.17: 2.3.2.17.1.- Transferred legacy resources will no longer be considered as such. 2.3.2.17.2 - A block that has previously been transferred under this policy may not be transferred again in full for a period of one year. 2.3.2.17.2.1 – During this one-year period, only transfers of up to 20% of the addresses of a transferred block will be allowed.Source facts ↗
Structure of the proposed paragraph for section 2.3.2.17 · The numbered provision format beginning with section 2.3.2.17.1 was replaced by an unnumbered “Note that” bullet list.
Source facts −
Add a paragraph at the end of section 2.3.2.17: 2.3.2.17.1.- Transferred legacy resources will no longer be considered as such.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
Add a paragraph at the end of section 2.3.2.17: Note that: - Transferred legacy resources will no longer be considered as suchSource facts ↗
Restrictions on partial transfers during the one-year period · The proposal added a requirement that permitted partial transfers have a prefix length equal to or shorter than the minimum allowed by policies in force and align with a CIDR bit boundary.
Source facts −
2.3.2.17.2.1 – During this one-year period, only transfers of up to 20% of the addresses of a transferred block will be allowed.Source facts ↗
Source facts +
- During this one-year period, only transfers of up to 20% of the addresses of a transferred block will be allowed. Such transfers must have a prefix length equal or shorter than the minimum allowed by the policies currently in force and match a CIDR bit boundarySource facts ↗
Presentation reference · The presentation reference changed from LACNIC 29 dated 30/04/2018 to LACNIC 30 dated 24/09/2018.
Debate timeline
Public discussion
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nova versão da proposta LAC-2018-2
5 Discussion messages · 4 Entities
Source facts ↗Public discussion
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nova versão da proposta LAC-2018-2
4 Discussion messages · 2 Entities
Source facts ↗
Entities
- Discussion messages5First activityMar 7, 2018Last activitySep 26, 2018First explicit stanceSupportLatest explicit stanceSupportStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo validated consistency assessmentOther policies27Freshness: Stale
Last research attempt: Sep 17, 2026
Identity verified: Oct 14, 2026
LACNIC · Historical Ricardo Patara (*) - Registration Service Manager.
www.lacnic.netNIC.BR · Current Actualmente se desempeña como gerente de Recursos de Numeración de Internet en NIC.BR
blog.lacnic.netVerified public profiles
- Discussion messages
- 5
- First activity
- Mar 7, 2018
- Last activity
- Sep 26, 2018
- First explicit stance
- Support
- Latest explicit stance
- Support
- Stance changes
- 0
- Viewpoint consistency
- No validated consistency assessment
- Other policies
- 27
First explicit stance: Support → Latest explicit stance: Support · Stance changes: 0
Viewpoint consistency: No validated consistency assessment
- Mar 7, 2018 · Support
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nova versão da proposta LAC-2018-2
this item tries to avoid companies buying others just for the ip resources to make money and trying to justify the transfer under 2.3.2.17. … similar protection is already in place in the 2.3.2.18 and I see no reason we should no have that in the 2.3.2.17.
Source facts ↗ - Mar 7, 2018 · Procedural or neutral
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nova versão da proposta LAC-2018-2
thanks ;-)
Source facts ↗ - Sep 25, 2018 · Unclear
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nova versão da proposta LAC-2018-2
de total acuerdo, pero no creo que al poner criterios en las pol?ticas lacnic se pone como un regulador. … comprendo los puntos y son muy validos.
Source facts ↗ - Sep 25, 2018 · Unclear
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nova versão da proposta LAC-2018-2
muy interesante ese caso, confeso que no lo habia pensado.
Source facts ↗ - Sep 26, 2018 · Unclear
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nova versão da proposta LAC-2018-2
es una opci?n interesante. capaz que estudiar bien y con lacnic para ver si les sale facil identificar empresas de un mismo grupo. … los grandes s?n los faciles, pero habr? otros menos conocidos y se necesitar? un procedimento.
Source facts ↗
Per-policy stance timelines:LAC-2012-8 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2013-1 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2013-2 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2013-4 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2014-2 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2014-3 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2015-2 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2015-4 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2016-2 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2016-5 · Oppose · No validated consistency assessmentLAC-2017-2 · Oppose · No validated consistency assessmentLAC-2017-5 · Oppose · No validated consistency assessmentLAC-2017-6 · Support · No validated consistency assessmentLAC-2017-8 · Propose alternative · No validated consistency assessmentLAC-2018-1 · Oppose · No validated consistency assessmentLAC-2018-12 · Support with changes · No validated consistency assessmentLAC-2018-2 · Support · No validated consistency assessmentLAC-2018-5 · Support with changes · No validated consistency assessmentLAC-2018-6 · Oppose · No validated consistency assessmentLAC-2018-7 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2018-8 · Oppose · No validated consistency assessmentLAC-2018-9 · Oppose · No validated consistency assessmentLAC-2019-12 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2020-9 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2024-4 · Unknown · No explicit position statedLAC-2026-3 · Unknown · No explicit position statedIPv4 address block allocation policies — Working Group 3 (2002) · Unknown · No explicit position statedMultihomed End User Microallocation (2003) · Unknown · No explicit position statedTotal policy messages: 69
- Unknown · Public sources found; identity verification pendingDiscussion messages3First activityFeb 7, 2018Last activityJul 27, 2018First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyNo explicit position statedOther policies20
- Mike Burns · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityMar 7, 2018Last activityMar 7, 2018First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies0
- André Costa · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activitySep 25, 2018Last activitySep 25, 2018First explicit stanceOpposeLatest explicit stanceOpposeStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyConsistentOther policies0
- Daniel Miroli · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityMar 7, 2018Last activityMar 7, 2018First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies1
- Paola Perez · Identity unresolvedDiscussion messages1First activityOct 9, 2018Last activityOct 9, 2018First explicit stanceUnknownLatest explicit stanceUnknownStance changes0Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistencyOther policies17
Sources and coverage
Official policy sources
Public discussion archives
- lacnic-politicas
- Earliest captured
- Oct 21, 1999
- Latest captured
- Oct 14, 2026
- Last refresh
- Aug 13, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 5,699
- 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
- 2,198
- 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 13, 2026
- Last refresh
- Oct 11, 2026
- Coverage
- Source coverage is incomplete.
- Loading
- 6,561
- 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.
