Profil de personne
PersonneCarlos Plasencia est suivi comme personne, avec des elements qui eclairent son identite, son role ou son contexte operationnel.
Les données disponibles couvrent Rôles: policy proposal author (LACNIC).
Appuie l'identite, le role ou le contexte organisationnel de Carlos Plasencia.
public people profile
Dernière mise à jour: 2026-09-20
Faits sourcés
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
Management of Returned Internet Resources
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
Réserves: Reporting a community outcome is not treated as personal support.
LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources
Management of Returned Internet Resources · Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained record reports parallel forum outcomes for both proposals but does not state the participant's own substantive position on either one, so no cross-policy consistency conclusion is supported.
Réserves: Consensus and last-call reporting are treated as community outcomes rather than as the participant's personal policy positions.
LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources
LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
Réserves: Reporting a community outcome is not treated as personal support.
LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Management of Returned Internet Resources · Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained record reports parallel forum outcomes for both proposals but does not state the participant's own substantive position on either one, so no cross-policy consistency conclusion is supported.
Réserves: Consensus and last-call reporting are treated as community outcomes rather than as the participant's personal policy positions.
LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources
LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained messages report consensus, ratification, and implementation timing, but do not express the participant's own policy position.
Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained messages report consensus, ratification, and implementation timing, but do not express the participant's own policy position.
Réserves: Administrative implementation notices are not treated as votes or endorsements.
The proposal was RATIFIED. However, it will be implemented as soon as the corresponding settings will be completed in LACNIC?s system.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The supplied material lists the Policy Development Process update for presentation but provides no substantive participant viewpoint on it.
Update to the Policy Development Process
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied material lists the Policy Development Process update for presentation but provides no substantive participant viewpoint on it.
Réserves: A separate retained observation assigned to this policy discusses another proposal's status and does not supply a position on this policy.
LAC-2014-3: Update to the Policy Development Process
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The participant asks whether the community wishes to continue or abandon the proposal, but does not state a personal support or opposition position.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The participant asks whether the community wishes to continue or abandon the proposal, but does not state a personal support or opposition position.
Réserves: A request for community direction is procedural and is not treated as the sender's vote.
Would you like to continue discussing this proposal or do you believe it should be abandoned?
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained messages list, summarize, and report the forum outcome for Inter-RIR Transfers, but do not identify the participant's own position.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained messages list, summarize, and report the forum outcome for Inter-RIR Transfers, but do not identify the participant's own position.
Réserves: Reported vote totals and status are community outcomes, not personal votes.
2015-2: Inter-RIR transfers. 17 in favor, 87 against, 33 abstentions. ABANDONED
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained messages report the proposal's discussion and eventual abandonment, but do not state the participant's own substantive viewpoint.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained messages report the proposal's discussion and eventual abandonment, but do not state the participant's own substantive viewpoint.
Réserves: A status change to abandoned is not evidence of the sender's personal opposition.
The status of proposals ?2015-3 IPv4 exhaustion policy with a scheduled termination date and the scheduled return of large users' blocks? has changed from ?UNDER DISCUSSION? to ?ABANDONED?.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained messages summarize the Resource Recovery Timeline proposal and report its forum result, but do not state the participant's own policy position.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained messages summarize the Resource Recovery Timeline proposal and report its forum result, but do not state the participant's own policy position.
Réserves: Reported vote totals and last-call status are community outcomes, not personal votes.
2015-4: Resource Recovery Timeline. 83 in favor, 3 against, 14 abstentions. APPROVED ? The proposal is now in the last call for comments period.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained message summarizes the proposed three-year transfer waiting period but does not express the participant's own support or opposition.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained message summarizes the proposed three-year transfer waiting period but does not express the participant's own support or opposition.
Réserves: A neutral policy summary is not treated as a personal viewpoint.
2015-5: Increase the minimum period of time required before a block can be transferred under section 2.3.2.18 Summary: This proposal seeks to modify section 2.3.2.18, increasing the period of time required before an assigned block can be transfered to 3 years, from the one-year period currently in force.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained messages describe the expedited process and invite comments for or against the proposal, without stating the participant's own position.
Modify the scope of IPv4 Exhaustion Phase 2 for the region
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained messages describe the expedited process and invite comments for or against the proposal, without stating the participant's own position.
Réserves: Soliciting views on approval is not treated as an endorsement or objection.
We would like to invite you all to participate by expressing your views and comments in favor or against approval of the proposal.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained messages announce and describe successive versions of the IPv4-IPv6 connectivity proposal but do not state the participant's own substantive view.
Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained messages announce and describe successive versions of the IPv4-IPv6 connectivity proposal but do not state the participant's own substantive view.
Réserves: Quoting proposal text as a forum chair is treated as procedural transmission.
The community's comments and opinions are essential to the proper functioning of the policy development process.- Do you support this policy or are you against it?
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The only retained observation lists the critical-infrastructure IPv4 reserve proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The only retained observation lists the critical-infrastructure IPv4 reserve proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
Réserves: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.
LAC-2016-2: IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The only retained observation lists the multihoming-status proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
Remove the reference to a provider’s "multihomed or non-multihomed status".
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The only retained observation lists the multihoming-status proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
Réserves: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.
LAC-2016-3: Remove the reference to a provider?s "multihomed or non-multihomed status".
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained messages announce and describe versions of the direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained messages announce and describe versions of the direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Réserves: Publishing version changes as a forum chair is not treated as a personal policy position.
Proposal LAC-2016-4 has been updated to version 2.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained messages announce and describe versions of the initial IPv6 allocation-size proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained messages announce and describe versions of the initial IPv6 allocation-size proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Réserves: Publishing version changes as a forum chair is not treated as a personal policy position.
Proposal LAC-2016-5 has been updated to version 2.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained messages announce and list the subsequent direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained messages announce and list the subsequent direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Réserves: Receipt and agenda notices are procedural evidence only.
A new Policy Proposal has been received and assigned the following ID:LAC-2016-6.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The only retained observation associated with this policy is an agenda listing of an IPv6 allocation-size proposal; it does not establish the participant's own viewpoint.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The only retained observation associated with this policy is an agenda listing of an IPv6 allocation-size proposal; it does not establish the participant's own viewpoint.
Réserves: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.
LAC-2016-5: Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations.