LACNIC · RIR Watchdog
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
Who actually shaped the debate?
BTW Analysis
The verified chronology records LAC-2025-5 as introduced on 1 December 2025, with versions 1 and 2 both recorded that day as “Ratified” and normalized as accepted, followed by an accepted decision on 24 March 2026. Because no policy text or version comparison is supplied, no substantive change between versions can be identified.
The subject of any debate cannot be determined from the supplied evidence. No messages, participant statements, stance records, supporting arguments, objections, or minority arguments were captured, and the policy’s substantive provisions are absent.
The decision outcome is clear: the proposal was accepted on 24 March 2026. The discussion record is empty: zero messages, zero discussion participants, zero active days, zero stance-bearing participants, and zero stance transitions. Acceptance therefore cannot be interpreted from this dataset as proof of broad consensus, representative participation, or an uncontested outcome.
The dataset counts four formal actors and four total participants but no discussion participants. With zero messages, the zero message shares, zero HHI, zero effective participant count, and zero core-participant counts describe an empty observed discussion rather than broad, equal, or unconcentrated participation. The identities, roles, and actions of the four formal actors are not supplied.
The only observable process junction is the formal path from accepted version records to the accepted decision. Four formal actors are counted, but the evidence does not identify their roles or show that they controlled this junction. No message-level evidence exists to determine whether advocacy, consensus assessment, voting, administrative ratification, or another mechanism served as the actual chokepoint.
Scope: critical-infrastructure IPv4 resources · The new text expressly excludes IPv4 resources assigned by LACNIC for critical infrastructure; the old scope applied exclusively to IPv4 resources without this exclusion.
Geographic restriction on use · The new text requires sub-assigned resources to be used exclusively within the LACNIC service region; the old terms contained no equivalent geographic-use restriction.
Eligibility of the organization making the sub-assignment · The new text requires the organization making the sub-assignment to hold resources in the LACNIC region and maintain a current service contract with LACNIC or its corresponding NIR; the old text imposed no equivalent requirement on the sub-assigning organization.
Maximum sub-assigned block size · The maximum permitted block size changes from /21 in the old text to /22 in the new text, while the /24 minimum remains unchanged.
Need justification and utilization review · The new text expands the justification rule by requiring a description of current and intended use, retaining the 25% immediate and 50% projected utilization thresholds, tying the process to Manual section 2.3.3.1.1, and authorizing periodic reviews under current procedures. The old text required demonstrated utilization or need and a detailed one-year plan, with additional information requested when deemed necessary.
Public movement log data limitation · The new text adds that the public log must not include sensitive data or operational information beyond what is strictly necessary for transparency and traceability; the old log provision had no corresponding data-minimization limitation.
Resource-holder responsibility and termination trigger · The old text required termination in the event of recipient misuse. The new text makes the sub-assigning member responsible for termination whenever the receiving party fails to comply with obligations defined in the Manual, with possible revocation for failure to act.
Prohibition on onward sub-assignment · The new text prohibits recipients from further sub-assigning blocks under the same modality; the old text contained no equivalent restriction.
Three-year restriction on newly received blocks · The old restriction covered blocks received through transfer or from LACNIC's recovered-resource pool. The new restriction applies to blocks obtained directly from LACNIC through assignment or allocation, as well as blocks obtained via transfer, for three years from receipt.
Three-year restriction on obtaining additional IPv4 resources · The new text bars an organization that makes a sub-assignment from requesting new IPv4 blocks or receiving IPv4 block transfers for three years after its last sub-assignment; the old text contained no equivalent restriction on the sub-assigning organization.
Partial
Earliest captured: Oct 21, 1999
Latest captured: Oct 10, 2026
