AFRINIC · Vigilancia de RIR
Consulta aquí el historial de cada propuesta: qué cambió, por qué fue relevante, quién defendió cada postura, cómo evolucionaron las posiciones, qué se decidió y dónde persisten las lagunas en la evidencia.
Hechos con fuentes
¿Quiénes marcaron realmente el debate?
Análisis de BTW
La cronología verificada únicamente permite afirmar que la propuesta fue introducida el 6 de mayo de 2026 y registrada ese mismo día como versión 2.0 en estado de última llamada. Los dos registros idénticos de la versión 2.0 no demuestran cambios sustantivos adicionales ni una evolución entre versiones.
No puede determinarse el objeto sustantivo del debate con la evidencia suministrada. No se incluyen el texto de la política, mensajes, posturas ni argumentos; solo consta la situación procedimental de la versión 2.0 en última llamada.
La evidencia describe una etapa procedimental de última llamada, no una decisión final. Tampoco documenta discusión: hay cero mensajes, cero participantes de discusión, cero días activos y ninguna postura o transición registrada. Por ello, no puede concluirse que la propuesta fuera aprobada, rechazada, retirada, aplazada o modificada posteriormente.
El conjunto registra un actor formal y un participante total, pero ninguna participación discursiva. Los valores cero de top-1, top-5, top-10, HHI, participantes efectivos y núcleos de participación derivan de que también hay cero mensajes; no prueban ni baja ni alta concentración del debate.
No puede identificarse un cuello de botella institucional o deliberativo concreto. El único punto de detención observable en la cronología es la última llamada, porque no se aporta una decisión posterior; sin embargo, la evidencia no permite saber si el proceso realmente se detuvo allí o si faltan registros posteriores.
Technical-need waiver and documented justification · Draft 1 says the utilisation requirement is waived for listed key technical needs. Draft 2 says it may be waived for demonstrated technical purposes and expressly requires enough documentation for AFRINIC to verify the justification. It retains the ordinary 90% threshold and the first-request exception for new members. The change makes the exceptional request more evidence-dependent; it is not an automatic entitlement or proof of any granted exception.
The above requirement is waived for network operators requesting new IP addresses for key technical needsHechos con fuentes ↗
The request justification must be sufficiently documented, in such way that AFRINIC can verify the compliance with the provided justification.Hechos con fuentes ↗
Allocation and assignment terminology · The first assessment asks the author to preserve reference to both allocation and assignment, rather than the first draft's phrase first allocation or request. Draft 2 uses first allocation or assignment request, and its assessment no longer proposes wording changes. This clarifies the two resource-request forms without showing that any request was approved.
their current resource pool – and in these cases, the request is treated as a first allocation or request.Hechos con fuentes ↗
In such circumstances, the relevant request shall be treated as a first allocation or assignment request for the purposes of this provision.Hechos con fuentes ↗
Technical versus operational constraints · Draft 2's staff interpretation explicitly excludes operational constraints as grounds for waiving the threshold. The first assessment describes technical exceptions without that express exclusion. Both assessments retain the need to identify fraudulent requests and prevent abuse, and both estimate implementation within 30 days of ratification. The exclusion is identified as staff interpretation; it should not be attributed to an identical sentence in the operative policy text.
However, some technical constraints deem it necessary to override this threshold requirement.Hechos con fuentes ↗
Operational constraints shall not be considered as justification to override this threshold requirement.Hechos con fuentes ↗
Draft sequence and source-date uncertainty · The first draft's history dates its initial posting to 6 May 2026, while its migrated header carries a conflicting 2020 date. Draft 2's history dates the revision to 16 June 2026 and attributes it to RPD discussion, although its header still says 6 May 2026. Follow the explicit draft sequence and retain that date disagreement. The draft-2 capture used in this comparison says Last call; neither that label nor its proposed implementation timeline proves ratification or deployment.
6th May 2026 Version 1: AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT01 Initial Draft Posted to RPDHechos con fuentes ↗
16th June 2026 Version 2: AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT02 Changes according to RPD discussionHechos con fuentes ↗
Procedural status; unchanged utilisation rules · The later page reports consensus awaiting Board ratification instead of last call. Version 2.0 and the utilisation exception wording are unchanged. The record supports advancement in procedure, not implementation or a reversal of the exception; the exact decision date is not established by these captures.
Policy ratification status · The page-level status changes from consensus awaiting Board ratification to ratified, with 25 September 2026 recorded as the AFRINIC Board ratification date. The remainder of the captured document is unchanged.
Versión oficial
Desconocida · Consensus (Awaiting Ratification by Board)(Presented at AF37 24 June 2026)
Hechos con fuentes ↗Versión oficial
Aceptada · RatifiedRatified by the AFRINIC Board on 25 September 2026(Presented at AF37 24 June 2026)
Hechos con fuentes ↗Parcial
Primera captura: 4 ago 2004
Última captura: 11 oct 2026