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-2019-7
RIR
LACNIC
Official status
Abandoned
Normalized status
Abandoned
Introduced
Unknown
Last source update
Oct 14, 2026
Coverage
Partial
Who actually shaped the debate?
3Total participants
3Discussion contributors
1Formal actors
5Discussion messages
2.3Effective participants
100%Top-five discussion share
1People covering 50%
2People covering 80%
BTW Analysis
BTW Analysis
What changed
LAC-2019-7 proposed changes to the election of PDP chairs. Eight retained versions document substantive revisions. Version 8 requires six months on the policy list for candidates and voters, ties nominations to a member organisation's membership contact, addresses incompatible roles, and provides for disqualification and election invalidation. It makes the Board the highest election appeal body, with possible delegation to an Electoral Commission. Compared with version 7, version 8 restores unlimited reelection and narrows the list-use prohibition from electoral purposes to campaigning. These are proposed provisions, not proof of implementation.
What the debate was really about
The dispute concerns how to protect elections without shifting an open community process toward institutional control. The proposal alleges interference and fraud risks; those allegations are not independently established by the text. Three messages from one correspondent oppose the proposal's complexity and added Board responsibilities, while accepting that a limited prior-list-membership requirement could be useful. A different correspondent conditionally favours a defined process for publishing candidate endorsements, partly to prevent fabricated support. A third reply concerns procedure and further versions; it does not establish substantive support for the whole proposal.
Arguments that prevailed
The available decision record does not identify a prevailing argument. Abandonment alone cannot establish that objections to complexity or institutional control caused the outcome.
Arguments that did not prevail
LACNIC records the proposal as abandoned, so this record does not demonstrate adoption of the complete reform. It does not establish that every individual safeguard was rejected on its merits.
Decision vs debate
LACNIC's policy page records abandonment on 22 August 2022. The five currently linked discussion messages date from May 2019 to June 2020. They demonstrate debate before 2021 but do not explain the later disposition. A procedural reply, conditional support for one mechanism and opposition to the overall design are different positions; they must not be counted as a simple approval ballot.
Participation concentration
The retained discussion contains five messages by three participants over four active days. One participant supplied three messages, or 60%; the message-share HHI is 0.44, equivalent to about 2.27 equally active participants. These figures describe this incomplete evidence set, not the whole community, voting strength or control over the decision. Repeated objections are not three independent opponents.
Chokepoint analysis
The six-month eligibility rule and member-contact nomination requirement would shape who can enter the contest. Disqualification for campaigning and sufficient indications of fraud would make interpretation and enforcement consequential. The Board's appellate role would concentrate review authority, while delegation would alter who exercises it. Unlimited reelection could favour continuity and incumbency. These are mechanisms and potential effects of the proposed text, not findings of actual abuse or adopted powers.
Uncertainties
The first-introduction date and exact publication dates of the eight versions remain unverified. The page's 30 August 2021 last-modified date is not evidence that the proposal or every version originated then.
The complete discussion and reasons for abandonment remain missing; later evidence may change the participation picture and causal interpretation.
Some retained mail text has damaged accented characters, and some public identities remain unresolved. Quoted or reported views must not be reassigned to the author of a reply.
PDP chair role incompatibilities · The proposed incompatibility rule changes from barring other positions within RIR/NIR, ICANN, TLD, or similar organizational structures to barring roles directly involved in any phase of the policy development process. The new wording also expressly provides that an elected candidate will cease in, or not assume, the incompatible role as specified in the nomination.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Candidate membership qualification and nomination support · Candidate qualification changes from being a LACNIC member or being supported by two LACNIC members to being the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or being nominated by two such membership contacts.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Electoral use of the Public Policy List and disqualification · The rule requiring candidates to comply strictly with the AUP and allowing supporter AUP violations to disqualify a candidate is replaced by a rule under which electoral use of the list, including by candidate supporters, may result in disqualification at the chairs' discretion when there is evidence of collusion.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Fraud findings and invalidation of the election process · The fraud provision is revised to apply at any time during the process and expressly permits disqualification of implicated candidates or invalidation and repetition of the entire process. The revised text directs that the replacement timeline align the election results as closely as possible with the following Public Policy Forum.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Runoff election trigger · Runoff voting is expanded beyond a tie between leading candidates. In an election with more than two candidates, a runoff between the top two candidates is also required when the leading candidate's margin is less than 10%.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Assessment of post-result objections · The objection standard changes from assessing whether objections are significant to assessing whether they are both significant and proven. The ratification condition is also rephrased so ratification proceeds if no objections are raised or the chairs decide not to consider them.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Recusal of a chair who is a candidate · A candidate-chair's recusal expands from abstaining only as chair during ratification to abstaining from every aspect of the election process. The revised text additionally requires the Board of Directors to appoint one or two non-candidate community members, as applicable, to chair the process.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Election appeals · The supplied new text adds that the LACNIC Board of Directors is the highest instance of appeal for matters relating to the election process; the supplied old text contains no corresponding appeal provision.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Candidate nomination sponsorship · The candidate sponsorship alternative changes from nomination by "two membership contact" of a single LACNIC member organization to nomination by two membership contacts of LACNIC member organizations, clarifying that two contacts are required and allowing the wording to encompass multiple organizations.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Chair reelection eligibility · The old text says chairs are "illegible" to run again after a one-year pause; the new text says they are "eligible" to run again. This reverses the literal eligibility rule after the pause.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Voter eligibility and voter registry controls · The fixed rule allowing participation by anyone who had been on the Public Policy List for at least six months is replaced by a voter-registry anti-tampering provision under which efforts will be made to exclude election-only subscribers, with a subscription cutoff of an unspecified number of months offered as an example.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
One-vote safeguard · The electronic-voting safeguard changes from an unqualified requirement to use mechanisms ensuring one vote per voter to a requirement to ensure this only "to the extent possible."
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Electoral misuse of the Public Policy List · Disqualification for collusive electoral use of the list is no longer expressly stated to be at the discretion of the chairs; the new text retains possible disqualification where there is evidence of collusion without identifying that decision-maker in this provision.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Fraud findings and process invalidation authority · The old text expressly assigns the chairs responsibility for determining whether sufficient indications of fraud exist and authority to disqualify candidates or invalidate the process. The new text uses impersonal or passive language and no longer expressly assigns those decisions to the chairs.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Candidate acceptance announcement · The announcement provision changes from publishing the names of "acceptable candidates" to publishing the names of candidates who meet all requirements and have been accepted, expressly linking publication to satisfaction of the requirements and acceptance.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Community information about candidates and Board disqualification · The old text allows community submissions consisting of expressions of support and information for objections and requires simultaneous publication. The new text instead conditions publication on confirmation of the information and expressly authorizes the Board to disqualify one or more candidates based on that information.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Tie definition and runoff threshold · The old text triggers a runoff for an exact tie or, when there are more than two candidates, when the leading margin is below 10%. The new text defines any difference below 10% as a tie and provides for a runoff between the top two when there are more than two candidates.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Objections and ratification authority · Responsibility for receiving objections, assessing whether they are significant and proven, and ratifying the winner shifts from the acting chairs to the LACNIC Board.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Recusal and replacement when a chair is a candidate · The old text requires a chair who is running to abstain from every aspect of the election process and requires the Board to appoint one or two non-candidate community members to chair the process. The new text omits this recusal-and-replacement provision while assigning the objection and ratification decision to the Board.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +Validated evidence is unavailable.
Restrictions on the two PDP Chairs' affiliations · The restriction preventing both chairs from being from the same country was replaced by a restriction preventing them from being from the same company or the same or related companies. The former exception also specified how one chair would cease serving at the following election, while the replacement exception contains no corresponding cessation procedure.
Source facts −
irs may not be from the same country, except in exceptional situations where there are no other acceptable candidates, in which case one of the chairs will cease in their position in the following election process (the following year), either because their term has come to an end or by agreement among the two chairs, failing which the chair who has held the position the longest will automatically cease in their position. o Thes
rs may not be from the same company or from the same or related companies, except in exceptional cases where there are no other acceptable candidates. o Their wo
Nature and compensation of Chair work · The positions were described as honorary; the replacement text expressly describes the work as voluntary and unpaid.
Candidate residency and member-contact nomination requirements · Candidate eligibility changed from being a LACNIC member-organization contact or being nominated by two such contacts to residing in the region for more than half the year and being either a member-organization contact or nominated by one such contact.
Source facts −
un for the position, a candidate must be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or, alternately, they must be nominated by two membership contacts of LACNIC member organizations. o PDP
es to the position must reside in the region more than 50% of the year and they must be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or nominated by one such contact. o PDP Chai
Voter-registry subscription cutoff · The illustrative cutoff based on subscribers who joined an unspecified “n” months before the process was replaced by a fixed requirement that subscribers have joined at least six months before the process.
Source facts −
hat the voters registry consists of the subscribers to the Public Policy List, in order to avoid tampering, efforts will be made to keep participants who subscribe solely for the election process from participating in each election, for example, by limiting the voters registry to those who have subscribed “n” months prior to the start of said process. o Any use
e voters registry consists of the subscribers to the Public Policy List, in order to avoid tampering, efforts will be made to keep participants who subscribe solely for the election process from participating in each election by limiting the voters registry to those who have subscribed at least six months prior to the start of said process. o Any use of the
Delegation of election-process functions · A provision was added allowing the Board of Directors to delegate its election-process functions to a Fiscal Commission or equivalent body; the prior text proceeded directly from the Board's appellate authority to additional information.
Source facts −
NIC Board is the highest instance of appeal in matters relating to the election process. Additional information - Timetable
ard is the highest instance of appeal in matters relating to the election process. o The Board of Directors may delegate its functions relate to the election process to a Fiscal Commission or its equivalent. Additional infor
Implementation timetable · The timetable field changed from “Immediate implementation” to a dash, with no timetable value stated in the supplied replacement text.
PDP Chair candidate eligibility and nomination requirements · The candidate requirement no longer states that candidates must reside in the region more than 50% of the year. It instead requires a candidate to be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or to be nominated by such a membership contact.
Source facts −
didates to the position must reside in the region more than 50% of the year and they must be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or nominated by one such contact. o PDP
run for the position, a candidate must be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or nominated by the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization. o PDP
PDP Chair re-election limits · The re-election rule changes from allowing only one consecutive term followed by a one-year pause to allowing re-election once and renewed eligibility after a period of at least one year.
Source facts −
Chairs will each serve a two-year term, with one position up for renewal each year. PDP Chairs may only be re-elected for one consecutive term, but are eligible to run again after a one-year pause. o Can
Chairs will each serve a two-year term, with one position up for renewal each year. PDP Chairs may be re-elected once, but are eligible to run again after a period of at least one year. o Can
Restrictions on chairs' country and organizational affiliation · The restriction changed from prohibiting chairs from the same or related companies to prohibiting chairs from the same country or from the same or related organizations, while retaining an exception when no other acceptable candidates exist.
Source facts −
o The Chairs may not be from the same company or from the same or related companies, except in exceptional cases where there are no other acceptable candidates.
3.2.2.3. The chairs may not be from the same country, or from the same or related organizations, except in exceptional cases where there are no other acceptable candidates.
Use of the Public Policy List for electoral purposes · The earlier text tied possible disqualification to electoral use of the list by persons supportive of a candidate where collusion was evidenced. The revised text expressly prohibits electoral use of the list, including expressions for or against candidates, and specifies that proven collusion with a candidate may disqualify that candidate.
Source facts −
Any use of the list for electoral purposes, even by persons clearly supportive of a candidate, may result in their disqualification if there is evidence of collusion.
.2.3.4. Any use of the list for electoral purposes is not allowed, including expressions for or against the candidates. If evidence of collusion with a candidate is found, this may result in the candidate's disqualification.
Election process scheduling · The fixed schedule requiring a call for candidates on the first day of the month three full months before the term ends, with a 28-to-31-day nomination phase, was replaced by a requirement to begin sufficiently early to permit completion before the outgoing chair's term ends even if the process must be repeated.
Source facts −
o The election process begins with a call for candidates issued on the 1st day of the month three full months prior to the end of the term of the chair that is to cease in their position. This phase will remain open for 28 to 31 days, depending on the length of the particular month during which it takes place.
3.2.3.6. The election process will begin with sufficient anticipation such that, even if the process were to be repeated, there will be enough time for it to be completed before the end of the term of the outgoing chair.
Community information concerning candidates · The fixed ten-day community-information period, mandatory simultaneous publication of confirmed information, and resulting Board disqualification authority were replaced by a period of at least ten days for submitting relevant information to the Board, with the Board empowered to decide on its use, publication, and potential disqualification.
Source facts −
o A period of ten calendar days will then begin during which the community will be able to contribute relevant information on the candidates. If confirmed, this information will be published simultaneously for all candidates on the first working day following the end of the ten-day period. Based on such information, the Board may proceed to disqualify one or more candidates.
3.2.3.8. A period of no less than ten calendar days will then begin during which the community may communicate to the Board of Directors information on any of the candidates which they consider relevant to the election. The potential use and publication of such information and even a potential disqualification are within the powers of the Board of Directors
Voting period · The requirement that voting begin on the first working Monday after the preceding period and remain open for exactly seven calendar days was replaced by a requirement that voting remain open for no less than seven calendar days, without the prior Monday-based start rule.
Source facts −
o Voting will begin on the first working Monday after the period specified above and will remain open for seven calendar days.
Winner determination and runoff voting · The earlier rule treated a vote difference below 10% as a tie and conditionally required a runoff between the two leading candidates. The revised rule elects the candidate with the most votes, limits runoff voting to an actual tie between the two highest tied candidates, and requires the runoff to remain open for at least seven calendar days.
Source facts −
o A difference of less than 10% will be considered a tie. In this case, if there are more than two candidates, runoff voting among the two candidates with the highest number of votes will begin the following working Monday and will remain open for seven calendar days.
3.2.3.10. The candidate with the highest number of votes will be elected. In the event of a tie, runoff voting among the two candidates who tied with the highest number of votes will begin and will remain open for a period of not less than seven cal
Announcement of voting results · The requirement for LACNIC to announce first-round and applicable runoff results immediately was replaced by a requirement to announce each voting round's result as soon as feasible.
Source facts −
o LACNIC will immediately announce the results of the first voting round as well as those of the runoff vote if applicable.
Current-text vacancy replacement term · In the quoted current text, the prior statement that a person elected after a failed ratification serves only the remainder of the original term is replaced by a statement that the Board-appointed chair serves only until an election can be held and a winner ratified.
Source facts −
o If a winner is not ratified, the LACNIC Board will appoint a chair to fill the vacant position until the following Public Policy Forum. The next time an election and ratification process can be held, the person elected will only fill the position for the remainder of the original term.
o If a winner is not ratified, the LACNIC Board will appoint a chair to fill the vacant position until the following Public Policy Forum. The person thus appointed will only fill the position until the next time an election can be held and a is winner ratified.
Incompatible roles for PDP Chairs · The proposed incompatibility rule is revised from roles involved in any phase of the policy-development process to roles directly involved in its flow, with the Electoral Commission and Board of Directors added as examples; the procedure for relinquishing an incompatible role is also rephrased.
Source facts −
3.2.2.2. The position is not compatible with other roles that are directly involved in the flow of the policy development process in any of its phases. If this were the case, the candidate's nomination must specify how they will solve this situation should they be elected Thus, if they are elected, they will automatically cease in (or not take possession of, as the case may be) such incompatible positions, as specified in their nomination. 3
3.2.2.2. The position is not compatible with other roles that are directly involved in the flow of the policy development process (e.g., the Electoral Commission or the Board of Directors). If this situation were to occur, the candidate's nomination must specify how they will solve this situation should they be elected, in which case they will automatically cease in (or not take possession of, as the case may be) the incompatible positions, as specified in their nomination.
Geographic and organizational diversity of Chairs · The proposed restriction preventing both Chairs from being from the same country or the same or related organizations, except when no other acceptable candidates exist, is removed.
Source facts −
.2.2.3. The chairs may not be from the same country, or from the same or related organizations, except in exceptional cases where there are no other acceptable candidates. 3
Voter registry eligibility · The voter-registry rule changes from an effort-based mechanism intended to exclude election-only subscribers to a categorical statement that the registry comprises persons who subscribed at least six months before the election process began.
Source facts −
. 3.2.3.3. Given that the voters registry consists of the subscribers to the Public Policy List, in order to avoid tampering, efforts will be made to keep participants who subscribe solely for the election process from participating in each election by limiting the voters registry to those who have subscribed at least six months prior to the start of said process.
. 3.2.3.3. The voters’ registry will be comprised of those persons who subscribed to the Public Policy List at least six months prior to the start of the election proce
Use of the Public Policy List for electoral purposes · The blanket prohibition on electoral use of the list, including expressions for or against candidates, is replaced by a prohibition that expressly excepts LACNIC announcements. Candidate disqualification is changed from being tied to evidence of collusion to being a possible consequence of noncompliance generally.
Source facts −
3.2.3.4. Any use of the list for electoral purposes is not allowed, including expressions for or against the candidates. If evidence of collusion with a candidate is found, this may result in the candidate's disqualific
ss. 3.2.3.4. With the exception of announcements by LACNIC, using the list for electoral purposes is forbidden. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the disqualification of the candida
Fraud remedies and repeat-election timing · The fraud provision is condensed. It retains possible candidate disqualification and election invalidation but removes the explicit requirement that LACNIC repeat the entire process and the requirement to align the repeated election results as closely as possible with the following Public Policy Forum.
Source facts −
ation. 3.2.3.5. If at any time during the process it is determined that there are sufficient indications of fraud, the candidate or candidates in question may be disqualified. If necessary, they may even invalidate the entire process and request that LACNIC repeat the process in its entirety, in which case a timeline will be set such that the timing of the election results will coincide as much as possible with the following Public Policy F
tes. 3.2.3.5. If at any time during the process it is determined that there are sufficient indications of fraud, the candidate or candidates in question may be disqualified, and the election process may be invalidated and a new one reques
Election scheduling, candidate publication, and community review · The proposed requirements to start elections sufficiently early for a repeat process, publish the accepted candidates, and provide at least ten calendar days for community submissions about candidates are removed.
Source facts −Validated evidence is unavailable.Source facts +
ted. 3.2.3.6. Elected chairs will begin their term immediately after the closing of the following Public Policy Fo
Voting duration, winner determination, runoff, and result announcements · The proposed minimum seven-day voting period, highest-vote winner rule, minimum seven-day runoff procedure for ties, and prompt announcement of each voting round are removed.
Source facts −
ctors. 3.2.3.9. Voting will be open for a period of not less than seven calendar days. 3.2.3.10. The candidate with the highest number of votes will be elected. In the event of a tie, runoff voting among the two candidates who tied with the highest number of votes will begin and will remain open for a period of not less than seven calendar days. 3.2.3.11. The result of each voting round will be announced as soon as feas
Objections and Board ratification procedure · The proposed seven-day period for objections, Board assessment of whether objections are significant and proven, and express Board ratification of the winning candidate are removed.
Source facts −
ible. 3.2.3.12. If any objections are raised by a member of the community, such objections must be communicated to the Board within seven calendar days of the announcement of the results. In this case, the Board will assess whether such objections are significant and have been proven. If no objections are raised, or if the Board decides not to consider such objections, it will proceed to ratify the winning candi
Term following failed ratification or early vacancy · The prior proposal stated that the person elected after a failed ratification would serve only the remainder of the original term. The revised proposal instead states that the Board-appointed chair serves until an election can be held and a winner ratified, while retaining application of the mechanism to resignation or failure to perform responsibilities.
Source facts −
orum. 3.2.3.14. If it were not possible to ratify a candidate, the LACNIC Board will appoint a chair to fill the vacant position until the following Public Policy Forum. The next time an election and ratification process can be held, the person elected will only fill the position for the remainder of the original term. This same mechanism will apply, if necessary, in case either of the chairs resigns before the end of their term or for any reason fails to meet their responsibili
rum. 3.2.3.7. If it is not possible to ratify any of the candidates, the LACNIC Board will appoint a chair to fill the vacant position until the following Public Policy Forum. The person thus appointed will only fill the position until the next time an election can be held and a is winner ratified. This same mechanism will apply, if necessary, in case either of the chairs resigns before the end of their term or for any reason fails to meet their responsibilit
Delegation of Board election functions · The body to which the Board may delegate election-related functions is changed from a Fiscal Commission or equivalent to an Electoral Commission or equivalent.
Source facts −
cess. 3.2.3.16. The Board of Directors may delegate its functions relate to the election process to a Fiscal Commission or its equival
PDP chair reelection eligibility · The reelection rule changed from allowing only one consecutive reelection followed by a waiting period of at least one year to allowing unlimited reelection.
Source facts −
PDP Chairs may only be re-elected once but are eligible to run again after a period of at least one year.
Use of the Public Policy List during elections · The prohibited use of the list changed from the broader category of "electoral purposes" to "campaigning."
Source facts −
. 3.2.3.4. With the exception of announcements by LACNIC, using the list for electoral purposes is forbidde
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jun 29, 2020 · Oppose
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2019-7
Me gusta mucho m?s el mecanismo actual de elecci?n de los moderadores que lo que se propone en esta propuesta … El mecanismo propuesto es mucho m?s complejo innecesariamente.
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2019-7
Estoy de acuerdo contigo en un punto que es el ?nico que me pareci? realmente interesante de la propuesta, que es el requisito de haber estado en la lista por cierto tiempo para poder ser elegible. … Pero para esto no hace falta algo tan complejo y largo como la propuesta actual. Alcanzar?a con una propuesta que solamente agregue este punto espec?fico. … Ese es justamente uno de los problemas que mencion? de esta propuesta, Es tan detallada, tan compleja y larga, que es dif?cil que se pueda lograr consenso sobre todos los puntos. … Que el requisito aplique tambi?n para ser elector, adem?s de elegible, podr?a aplicar tambi?n, pero en realidad volvemos al punto en que estar?amos tratando de resolver un problema que no existe. Ser?a partir de la premisa de que estos son cargos muy codiciados y de gran poder al punto que puedan justifiquen una movilizaci?n masiva de recursos y gente para lograr que alguien sea elegido, cuando en realidad son cargos voluntarios que ocupa gente que generosamente contribuye con su tiempo. … Me parece que estas cosas las controla la comunidad de forma natural sin necesidad de una pol?tica. Por eso es que dije antes que el sistema actual es m?s ?basado en la comunidad?, cuando el propuesto es mucho m?s institucional, dandole roles (ambiguos en algunos casos y complejos en otros) a organismos institucionales (El Directorio claramente) … Por otra parte, algunos de los problemas que surgen innecesariamente de la propuesta, y que seguramente se convertir?an en dolores de cabeza futuros, en caso de ser adoptada, es que hay muchas conceptos que son dif?ciles de definir. Entrar?amos en un espiral de agregar procesos, definiciones y aclaraciones totalmente in?til. … Que significa que haya ?suficientes evidencias de fraude? en la etapa anterior a la elecci?n? quien lo decide, como? en base a que criterios el Directorio asumir? la responsabilidad de eliminar candidatos? … No solo se le dar?a nuevos atributos al Directorio sino que al mismo tiempo se le pondr?a en el aprieto de tener que asumir responsabilidades complejas. … Lo de colocar el requisito de que las personas sean de distintos pa?ses, puede tambi?n ser un argumento defendible, pero nuevamente estamos asemejando estos cargos voluntarios con los cargos del directorio u otros ?rganos institucionales cuando son cargos de naturaleza totalmente diferente. … La clave me parece que no es colocar tantos requisitos y hacer tan complejo el proceso de la elecci?n sino que la calve es que la comunidad funcione bien y que por lo tanto haya un control natural sobre los poderes y formas de trabajo de los moderadores, lo que a mi juicio, funciona muy bien en la actualidad.
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2019-7
Yo sigo pensando que no es necesaria, que agrega complejidad, que el sistema actual es m?s basado en la comunidad, que esta propuesta generar? problemas en su implementaci?n y que intenta resolver problemas que no existen.
