Summary

  • LAC-2026-6 version 1 would make the “version of a proposal” the explicit object of discussion, consensus calls, forum scheduling, last call and the Board's final decision. Author Jordi Palet Martinez calls the edits clarification.
  • LACNIC staff objects that the proposal is the PDP's object and versioning only tracks its development. Staff says the draft would take from the chairs their job of comparing versions to decide whether another forum presentation is needed.

The proposed text reaches the Board with a tiny change in verbs and a large change in nouns. Today's LACNIC PDP says the Board may “Ratify the proposal” after last call. LAC-2026-6 would say “Accept the version of the proposal.” If rejected, the draft would allow a request for a new proposal or version. A version number becomes the named unit of the Board's formal act.

Palet Martinez presents this as a repair to sloppy language. His rationale says the current process often writes “proposal” when it means “version of a proposal.” The proposal also corrects the order of a mechanical step: the policy system assigns an identification code before review and publication, whereas the current written sequence puts review first. The author says the system requires a new version whenever a discussion period is restarted, even if the text has not changed. Those are concrete process seams, not an invented crisis.

The draft does far more than fix the form. Section 3.1 would make versions the formal subject of discussion on the Public Policy List. Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.4 would have chairs evaluate consensus on versions, choose which versions reach the Public Policy Forum and run an eight-week discussion clock for a version. Section 3.5 would present versions at the forum. Section 3.6 would put a version before the Board. The same grammatical swap appears at every gate in the chain.

LACNIC staff's response in the official proposal record says the distinction matters. A proposal, staff writes, is what the PDP discusses as it absorbs changes from debate. Versions are the audit trail of that evolution. The Board ratifies or rejects the proposal in its final state. Chairs compare changes between versions to decide whether discussion has been sufficient and how to allocate forum time. Staff says Palet Martinez's text removes that chair function. The official page records no staff recommendation for this version and no impact on the policy system; those entries do not erase the explicit substantive objection.

The current PDP gives chairs a specific scheduling judgment: an already-presented proposal's new version need not automatically return to the forum; chairs weigh significant textual changes and discussion on the list. The proposed version-centric wording has to preserve that judgment if its author wants to call the result clarification. Otherwise the system's act of creating a version could start dictating how a human forum and the Board treat a proposal.

The official policy list still marks LAC-2026-6 version 1 Under discussion from 25 September through 20 November 2026, with a first consensus assessment next. It was presented at LACNIC 46 on 21 October. The next meaningful evidence is the chairs' response to the staff objection: which object will they say reaches consensus, and who decides whether a new version needs another forum slot?

Sources