BTW.Media
Daily editionStrategic Internet Intelligence
Sign InRegister

LACNIC · RIR Watchdog

Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs

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-2018-9
RIR
LACNIC
Official status
Implemented
Normalized status
Accepted
Introduced
Mar 29, 2018
Last source update
Oct 14, 2026
Coverage
Partial

Who actually shaped the debate?

6Total participants
6Discussion contributors
1Formal actors
23Discussion messages
3Effective participants
95.7%Top-five discussion share
2People covering 50%
3People covering 80%

BTW Analysis

BTW Analysis

What changed

LAC-2018-9 moved from introduction and version 1 on 2018-03-29 to a recorded accepted decision on 2018-06-26. Version 1 carries the raw status "Implemented" and normalized status "accepted." The supplied facts do not identify substantive amendments, later versions, affected policy provisions, or operational effects, so the substantive change cannot be determined.

What the debate was really about

The subject of any debate cannot be determined from the supplied record because it contains no proposal text, discussion messages, participant stance timelines, or supporting, opposing, unresolved, or minority arguments. The record establishes a policy lifecycle and outcome, not the substance of deliberation.

Decision vs debate

A formal accepted decision is recorded, but no observable discussion accompanies it in the supplied participation dataset: zero messages, zero discussion participants, zero active days, zero stance participants, and zero stance transitions. Therefore, the decision outcome is established, while the existence, content, breadth, and influence of any discussion are not. No causal link between participation and acceptance can be inferred.

Participation concentration

Participation cannot responsibly be characterized as concentrated or broadly distributed. The dataset records zero messages and zero discussion participants, so the zero top-message shares, zero HHI, zero effective-participant count, and zero core counts describe an empty observed discussion rather than an even distribution. One formal actor and one total participant are recorded, but the actor's identity and role are not supplied.

Chokepoint analysis

The only observable chokepoint is the formal decision stage that produced acceptance on 2018-06-26. The supplied record identifies one formal actor but does not identify that actor, the deciding body, voting or consensus rules, decision rationale, or procedural authority. It therefore does not establish who controlled the chokepoint, whether the actor exercised unilateral power, or how any discussion affected the decision.

Uncertainties

  • It is uncertain whether zero recorded messages means no discussion occurred or only that no discussion was captured by the source revision.
  • The relationship between the raw status "Implemented" dated 2018-03-29 and the later accepted decision dated 2018-06-26 is not explained.
  • The proposal's substantive purpose, policy mechanism, affected provisions, and operational effects are not supplied.
  • No vote totals, consensus determination, decision rationale, meeting record, appeal record, or identity of the deciding body is supplied.
  • The identity, role, and authority of the single recorded formal actor are not supplied.
  • The absence of later versions or additional procedural stages from the supplied chronology does not prove that none existed elsewhere.
  • Dataset provenance and computation time are supplied, but completeness of historical discussion coverage is not established.
  • The Doctrine package does not establish a complete official position for LAC-2018-9 and therefore does not fill the factual gaps.

Policy evolution

Debate timeline

  1. Introduced

    Introduced

    Source facts ↗

  2. Official version

    1

    Accepted · Implemented

    Source facts ↗

  3. Public discussion

    [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva propuesta LAC-2018-9 / Nova proposta LAC-2018-9 / New proposal LAC-2018-9

    11 Discussion messages · 2 Entities

    Source facts ↗

  4. Public discussion

    [LACNIC/Politicas] Propuesta de política LAC-2018-9 - Ultimos Comentarios

    6 Discussion messages · 3 Entities

    Source facts ↗

  5. Public discussion

    [LACNIC/Politicas] Propuesta de política LAC-2018-9 - Ultimos Comentarios

    2 Discussion messages · 2 Entities

    Source facts ↗

  6. Official decision

    accepted

    accepted

    Source facts ↗

Entities

Freshness: Stale · Last refresh: · The latest refresh failed. The last successful result is shown.
  1. RICARDO PATARA
    Discussion messages11
    First activityApr 2, 2018
    Last activityMay 30, 2018
    First explicit stanceOppose
    Latest explicit stanceOppose
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyNo validated consistency assessment
    Other policies27
    Freshness: Stale · Last refresh: · The latest refresh failed. The last successful result is shown.

    Last research attempt: Sep 17, 2026

    Identity verified: Oct 14, 2026

    LACNIC · Historical
    Ricardo Patara (*) - Registration Service Manager.
    www.lacnic.net
    NIC.BR · Current
    Actualmente se desempeña como gerente de Recursos de Numeración de Internet en NIC.BR
    blog.lacnic.net

    Verified public profiles

    Discussion messages
    11
    First activity
    Apr 2, 2018
    Last activity
    May 30, 2018
    First explicit stance
    Oppose
    Latest explicit stance
    Oppose
    Stance changes
    0
    Viewpoint consistency
    No validated consistency assessment
    Other policies
    27

    First explicit stance: Oppose → Latest explicit stance: Oppose · Stance changes: 0

    Viewpoint consistency: No validated consistency assessment

    1. Apr 2, 2018 · Oppose

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva propuesta LAC-2018-9 / Nova proposta LAC-2018-9 / New proposal LAC-2018-9

      Estoy en cuentra esa propuesta. … El impacto en la tabla de rutas no seria solamente por un prefijo adicional que se transfiere al cliente pero debido a la desagregaci?n que el upsstream tendr? que hacer para atender la solicitud de su cliente.

      Source facts ↗
    2. Apr 3, 2018 · Oppose

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva propuesta LAC-2018-9 / Nova proposta LAC-2018-9 / New proposal LAC-2018-9

      as? que para atender ese cliente el ISP tendr?a que dejar de anunciar un solo prefijo (/16) y pasar a anunciar 8 prefijos! … no creo que vale la pena ese "costo" para atender una necesidad peque?a y temporal. Una vez que la necesidad para IPv4 debe ser cada vez menor.

      Source facts ↗
    3. Apr 3, 2018 · Oppose

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva propuesta LAC-2018-9 / Nova proposta LAC-2018-9 / New proposal LAC-2018-9

      por eso sigo en contra. … lo que proponen es una camino para que un ISP cliente intente convencer su usptream a darle IPs que para ese ultimo son IMPORTANTES y pueden ser utilizadas, sino con ese cliente (que pasa a ter su propio bloque), pero con otros.

      Source facts ↗
    4. Apr 6, 2018 · Oppose

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva propuesta LAC-2018-9 / Nova proposta LAC-2018-9 / New proposal LAC-2018-9

      Lo que estoy a comentar es que el "costo" frente al beneficio no justifica. … sigo en contra y no veo necesidad para tal.

      Source facts ↗
    5. Apr 6, 2018 · Oppose

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva propuesta LAC-2018-9 / Nova proposta LAC-2018-9 / New proposal LAC-2018-9

      no! no es lo mismo! mira el el ejemplo que presente acerca de los prefijos!

      Source facts ↗
    6. Apr 6, 2018 · Oppose

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva propuesta LAC-2018-9 / Nova proposta LAC-2018-9 / New proposal LAC-2018-9

      ahora, si un cliente de un isp transito le condiciona a su isp upstream concretar una conexi?n solamente si le transfieren un /24, por ejemplo, el comercia har? todo lo necesario internamente para que as? lo sea. … por eso soy contrario.

      Source facts ↗
    7. May 3, 2018 · Oppose

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Propuesta de política LAC-2018-9 - Ultimos Comentarios

      y insisto, el problema de la desagregraci?n es grave y tu, como autor, no lo comenta. es un problema t?cnico que indica impacto serio en el caso se la implemente. no est? bien que el autor lo ignore. … s?, se crea situaci?n de desiguladad una vez que dicha posibilidad no se aplica a todos.

      Source facts ↗
    8. May 3, 2018 · Oppose

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Propuesta de política LAC-2018-9 - Ultimos Comentarios

      exacto. sigo en contra desagregaci?n. … no le toca a una propuesta de politica motivar la desgragacion.

      Source facts ↗
    9. May 3, 2018 · Oppose

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Propuesta de política LAC-2018-9 - Ultimos Comentarios

      se beneficia a uno (a qui?n se le cede el bloque), se perjudica a millones... no es justo. Ni tecnicamente aceptable. … el impacto es alto! y el benef?cio peque?o.

      Source facts ↗
    10. May 30, 2018 · Unclear

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Propuesta de política LAC-2018-9 - Ultimos Comentarios

      cuando implementado quedar? descrito solamente lo que est? en el texto. "coment?rio adicional" tratase de "comentario" :-)

      Source facts ↗
    11. May 30, 2018 · Oppose

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Propuesta de política LAC-2018-9 - Ultimos Comentarios

      Tu mismo eres un defensor de que los textos sean lo m?s claros posibles para evitar diferentes interpretaciones. Es diferente de tener una instruci?n de como se utilizar un recurso de que como asignarlo. Dejar para la interpretaci?n del staff est? muy malo.

      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 stated

    Total policy messages: 69

  2. Jordi Palet Martinez
    Discussion messages7
    First activityApr 2, 2018
    Last activityMay 30, 2018
    First explicit stanceSupport
    Latest explicit stanceSupport with changes
    Stance changes1
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    Other policies39
  3. Paola Perez · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages2
    First activityJun 14, 2018
    Last activityJun 25, 2018
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies17
  4. Juan Alejo Peirano · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityMay 22, 2018
    Last activityMay 22, 2018
    First explicit stanceSupport
    Latest explicit stanceSupport
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    Other policies23
  5. Ariel Weher · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityJun 1, 2018
    Last activityJun 1, 2018
    First explicit stanceUnknown
    Latest explicit stanceUnknown
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyInsufficient evidence to assess consistency
    Other policies5
  6. Alejandro Guzman · Identity unresolved
    Discussion messages1
    First activityMay 3, 2018
    Last activityMay 3, 2018
    First explicit stanceSupport
    Latest explicit stanceSupport
    Stance changes0
    Viewpoint consistencyConsistent
    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
    5,643
    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
    2,176
    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
    6,523
    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: · The latest refresh failed. The last successful result is shown.

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.