LACNIC’s neutrality answers split 2–1

Summary

Two candidates say neutrality is slipping in Latin America. One says the region does not appear to be losing it now; two describe the principle or examples without judging the trend.
Their diagnoses point to different control problems: commercial prioritisation, regulatory initiatives, zero-rating and administrative orders. None supplies a shared way to measure the regional claim.

One question, five different gauges

LACNIC’s Board election schedule set voting from 3 November at 18:00 UTC to 10 November at 18:00 UTC. Before the vote, the election system asked all five candidates the same question: what is their position on maintaining net neutrality, and has Latin America been losing it?

The answers agree on the first half and split on the second. Every candidate defends neutrality. Jorge Mario Valencia Mesa says the region is losing ground through commercial traffic prioritisation and market concentration. Carmen Denis Polanco also answers yes, pointing to administrative authorities ordering blocks and to measures with no expiry date.

Gabriel Adonaylo gives the clearest opposing verdict: Latin America does not appear to be losing neutrality at present. He still names warning signs, including regulatory initiatives and economic agreements that could favour selected services. His answer draws a line between a risk and a trend already under way.

The other two stop short of that verdict. Rafael Antonio Ibarra Fernández describes zero-rating promotions: a service can be excluded from a customer’s data allowance, giving it an advantage over services that count toward the cap. He calls that unequal treatment, but does not say how widespread it is or whether it is growing. Norberto Enrique Faria Rodriguez calls neutrality foundational and says people and organisations view it from different perspectives. He offers no yes-or-no assessment of regional change.

That leaves a useful election tally: two answers say the region is losing neutrality, one says it is not happening now, and two do not settle the trend question. The candidates are not merely choosing different examples. They are using “neutrality” to point at different levers.

The word hides four separate disputes

Jorge’s answer centres on commercial control: who may pay to give traffic priority, and whether market concentration lets a provider favour one application over another. He also distinguishes that from technical traffic management, which he says is needed to keep networks secure and functioning. That distinction matters. A congestion measure and a paid fast lane can both change how packets travel; the candidate says their purpose and incentive separate them.

Gabriel’s answer moves the focus to rules and commercial agreements. He sees a risk when agreements tilt the field toward services able to pay, but says that risk has not yet become a regional decline. Rafael’s zero-rating example is more concrete about the offer and less complete about its scale: a customer receives one service outside the meter, while the rest of the Internet remains inside it.

Carmen names a different source of pressure: administrative blocking orders without a stated end date. That is a claim in her candidate answer, not a regional count. It also does not answer how often users face commercial prioritisation or zero-rating. Norberto’s response identifies the problem underneath the disagreement: neutrality can mean different things to different actors, even when they all endorse the word.

The candidate pages contain no common time window, list of countries, indicator or denominator. A comparable official country-level time series defining discriminatory traffic treatment and naming its period and country coverage would change the regional trend assessment.

What the ballot can and cannot measure

A candidates’ questionnaire is a record of their diagnoses. It is not a measurement of how operators treat traffic across the region. The ballot selects LACNIC Board members; it does not decide a shared technical definition by itself.

That makes the missing test more than a research nicety. Without one, a future discussion can slide between a regulator’s blocking order, a commercial zero-rating deal and a network’s congestion control as though they were interchangeable. They are not the same decision, actor or incentive. Calling all of them a loss of neutrality can rally support while leaving the remedy unresolved.

The vote will show which candidates members prefer. It will not tell the region whether neutrality is deteriorating. For that, the next useful record would state what conduct counts, where it was observed, over which period, and how technical necessity is separated from commercial favour. Until that record exists, the strongest finding in the candidates’ own answers is the split itself: broad support for the principle, no shared gauge for its condition.