Profil de personne
PersonneNicolas Antoniello est suivi comme personne, avec des elements qui eclairent son identite, son role ou son contexte operationnel.
Les données disponibles couvrent Rôles: author.
Appuie l'identite, le role ou le contexte organisationnel de Nicolas Antoniello.
public people profile
Dernière mise à jour: 2026-09-21
Faits sourcés
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained contribution is classified as procedural_or_neutral for Management of Returned Internet Resources and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Management of Returned Internet Resources
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained contribution is classified as procedural_or_neutral for Management of Returned Internet Resources and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Réserves: 转述董事会批准和实施决定。
Management of Returned Internet Resources · Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are procedural_or_neutral for Management of Returned Internet Resources and procedural_or_neutral for Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained contribution is classified as procedural_or_neutral for Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained contribution is classified as procedural_or_neutral for Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Réserves: 转述董事会批准和实施决定。
Management of Returned Internet Resources · Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are procedural_or_neutral for Management of Returned Internet Resources and procedural_or_neutral for Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained contribution is classified as procedural_or_neutral for Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained contribution is classified as procedural_or_neutral for Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Réserves: 发布政策状态摘要。
Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment · Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are procedural_or_neutral for Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment and procedural_or_neutral for Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
The retained contributions use the same procedural_or_neutral classification for Update to the Policy Development Process; no contrary position appears in the supplied record.
Update to the Policy Development Process
Évaluation: Cohérent · The retained contributions use the same procedural_or_neutral classification for Update to the Policy Development Process; no contrary position appears in the supplied record.
Réserves: 发布政策状态摘要。 · The joint moderators report that the community approved LAC-2014-3; the report does not establish the sender’s personal vote.
Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements · Update to the Policy Development Process
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are procedural_or_neutral for Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements and procedural_or_neutral for Update to the Policy Development Process. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Cohérence du point de vue: Mixte
The retained contributions on Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC. vary across procedural_or_neutral, support. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.
Évaluation: Mixte · The retained contributions on Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC. vary across procedural_or_neutral, support. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.
Réserves: The joint moderators report that LAC-2015-1 returned to discussion after the forum vote. This is not personal opposition by Nicolas. Language versions disagree over favorable votes and abstentions, so neither disputed count is treated as authoritative. · Explicit personal support for LAC-2015-1 because recording intra-regional transfers keeps the registry aligned with actual use. The detailed transfer conditions are quoted existing policy, not newly demanded changes.
Update to the Policy Development Process · Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are procedural_or_neutral for Update to the Policy Development Process and procedural_or_neutral, support for Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC.. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained contribution is classified as procedural_or_neutral for Inter-RIR Transfers and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained contribution is classified as procedural_or_neutral for Inter-RIR Transfers and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Réserves: The joint moderators report continued discussion of LAC-2015-2 despite broad support for having an inter-RIR transfer policy; this does not establish Nicolas’s own conditional support.
Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC. · Inter-RIR Transfers
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are procedural_or_neutral, support for Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC. and procedural_or_neutral for Inter-RIR Transfers. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained contribution is classified as oppose for Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained contribution is classified as oppose for Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Réserves: The message records the author’s position on the policy proposal.
Inter-RIR Transfers · Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are procedural_or_neutral for Inter-RIR Transfers and oppose for Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained contribution is classified as question_or_clarify for Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained contribution is classified as question_or_clarify for Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Réserves: The author asks the policy discussion to account for non-formal LIR structures and their different operational pattern.
Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported · Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are oppose for Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported and question_or_clarify for Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Cohérence du point de vue: Mixte
The retained contributions on One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC vary across question_or_clarify, support. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.
One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC
Évaluation: Mixte · The retained contributions on One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC vary across question_or_clarify, support. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.
Réserves: Asks about source-region scope and the nature of the legal document. · Asks for contractual details and authoritative confirmation of reciprocity interpretation. · Supports a realistic transfer-registration policy while seeking a workable reciprocity interpretation. · Explicit strong support grounded in reliable registry records despite ethical reservations about transfers.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify for Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations and question_or_clarify, support for One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
The retained contributions use the same question_or_clarify classification for Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers; no contrary position appears in the supplied record.
Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers
Évaluation: Cohérent · The retained contributions use the same question_or_clarify classification for Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers; no contrary position appears in the supplied record.
Réserves: Requests clarification of the difference between the two minimum-allocation proposals. · Seeks exact wording and approach differences before choosing either proposal.
One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC · Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify, support for One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC and question_or_clarify for Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
The retained contributions use the same question_or_clarify classification for Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs; no contrary position appears in the supplied record.
Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs
Évaluation: Cohérent · The retained contributions use the same question_or_clarify classification for Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs; no contrary position appears in the supplied record.
Réserves: Requests clarification of the difference between the two minimum-allocation proposals. · Seeks exact wording and approach differences before choosing either proposal.
Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers · Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs
Évaluation: Cohérent · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify for Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers and question_or_clarify for Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained contribution is classified as propose_alternative for Addenda − Resource revocation and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained contribution is classified as propose_alternative for Addenda − Resource revocation and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Réserves: Proposes staff technical evaluation followed by board ratification and exceptional discretion.
Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs · Addenda − Resource revocation
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify for Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs and propose_alternative for Addenda − Resource revocation. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Addenda − Resource revocation · Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are propose_alternative for Addenda − Resource revocation and oppose for Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
The retained contributions use the same oppose classification for Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.; no contrary position appears in the supplied record.
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.
Évaluation: Cohérent · The retained contributions use the same oppose classification for Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.; no contrary position appears in the supplied record.
Réserves: Nicolas questions the need for the proposed reduction and opposes a normal last-call period below 30 days, noting that urgent proposals can use the expedited process. · Nicolas considers last call an additional bottom-up safeguard and sees no reason to shorten the ordinary period when expedited handling is already available. He acknowledges some arbitrariness in the exact number of days. · Rejects shortening last call as the solution to urgent edge cases; argues that the expedited PDP already serves those cases. · Opposes shortening ordinary last call below 30 days and disputes inferring that a rarely used review stage is unnecessary. Does not commit here to supporting every possible thirty-day amendment. · Remains unconvinced by shortening ordinary last call and defends sufficient community participation time. Mentions thirty days as a possible but arbitrary compromise, without a clear affirmative endorsement; notes the expedited process already serves urgent policies.
Estimados, No me queda clara la necesidad de bajar tanto el per?odo de ?ltimos comentarios. En el caso de las pol?ticas de necesidad urgente de aplicaci?n est? el proceso expeditivo... pero para el proceso normal no creo que dicho per?odo deba ser menor a 30 d?as. Es un n?mero un tanto arbitrario pero creo que nos da ciertas garant?as en el PDP. Saludos, Nicolas El El mar, 13 de jun. de 2017 a las 15:49, <info-politicas at lacnic.net> escribi?:
Sergio, Tal vez no se debi? al per?odo de ?ltimos comentarios sino a que puede que esa deber?a haber ido por proceso expeditivo... No creo que el cuello de botella en esos casos de borde sea el tiempo para ?ltimos comentarios ni el hecho de que se "exprese consenso o no" en el Foro... reitero que creo para esos casos "urgentes" est? el proceso expeditivo. Saludos, Nico 2017-06-14 16:51 GMT-03:00 Sergio Rojas. . . <sergio at lacnic.net>:
Cohérence du point de vue: Mixte
The retained contributions on Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR) vary across support, procedural_or_neutral, propose_alternative. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.
Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)
Évaluation: Mixte · The retained contributions on Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR) vary across support, procedural_or_neutral, propose_alternative. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.
Réserves: Defends the need for globally managed resources for organizations operating across regions, citing out-of-region use and VPN workarounds as his rationale. · Wants substantive regional discussion before proceeding through the global process and says expedited treatment would not make sense. Does not claim existing global consensus or final implementation. · Defends his GIR proposal as a virtual global-resource mechanism, with eligibility based on operations across regions and demonstrated need. · Argues that anycast, small distributed deployments and administrative constraints merit discussion; cited operator anecdotes remain attributed recollections rather than verified facts. Global-policy discussion starting at RIRs is not global approval. · Clarifies that his proposed virtual registry would be operated by the existing five RIRs and remains open to implementation discussion. · Offers future international-water and space networks as possible use cases, not evidence of existing deployments or approval. · Nicolas defends the GIR proposal, argues that ICP-2 can be amended and distinguishes global administrative registration from multiple ASNs required for separate networks. · His examples of devices beyond existing regions are hypothetical motivations, not evidence that such registry arrangements already exist. · Nicolas defends a single administrative and economic point of contact for global organizations and says the proposal is not a new BGP attribute or routing mechanism. · He accepts that recognition requirements would need to be resolved. Space and future settlement examples remain hypothetical, not evidence of an existing constituency or adopted policy. · Nicolas continues to support the GIR proposal as administrative reorganization and early preparation for future needs. He invites other regions’ views. · His future and off-Earth examples remain hypothetical. This message does not establish adoption, implementation or a reversal of his earlier support. · Nicolas says the global-policy process has started and expects the proposal to reach other lists. This message reports his expectation about circulation, without establishing adoption or a substantive vote. · The claimed global-process status is the author’s statement, not independently verified recognition or consensus. · Nicolas reports sending the proposal to the ASO and RIRs and emphasizes obtaining feedback before determining whether it has support. The circulation claim is not proof that any registry has accepted the proposal. · This specific message is procedural; his substantive position must be evidenced by his other messages rather than inferred here. · Proposes withdrawing LAC-2018-1 as a formal proposal while continuing cross-RIR discussion and pursuing an ICP-2 review and a global community discussion process. · Continues to see possible future need for a global registry and asks that its desirability be evaluated. Withdrawal of this proposal is not opposition to the GIR concept or a reversal of his earlier support for examining it. His views about ICP-2 are historical attributed claims, not independently established current rules.
Cohérence du point de vue: Mixte
The retained contributions on Minor revision to the PDP vary across support, support_with_changes, propose_alternative. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.
Évaluation: Mixte · The retained contributions on Minor revision to the PDP vary across support, support_with_changes, propose_alternative. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.
Réserves: The author expresses support 'in principle' and does not request a specific change in this message. · The author favors continuing the discussion but proposes wording that avoids tying continuation to a version change and also requires the eight-week period to restart. · The author proposes version-neutral wording for continuation of discussion and separately calls for adding a reset of the discussion period. · The author accepts restarting the discussion period but proposes replacing the version-specific choices with simpler, version-neutral wording about continuing discussion or abandoning the proposal.
En principio estoy de acuerdo con la modificacion que se propone. Saludos, Nicolas El El vie, 14 de set. de 2018 a las 11:03, <info-politicas at lacnic.net> escribi?:
Hola Jordi y Ricardo, Creo que ricardo tiene raz?n en que habr?a que reiniciar el per?odo pues es como ?seguir la discusi?n en el foro?... tal vez se puede simplemente poner ?decidir con el autor si desea(n) continuar la discusi?n en el foro o abandonar la propuesta?. De esa forma queda libre lo de las versiones. Tambien, como dice Ricardo habr?a que resetrar el tiempo de 8 semanas. Saludos, Nico El El vie, 14 de set. de 2018 a las 11:15, Ricardo Patara < patara at registro.br> escribi?:
Estimados, Vuelvo a plantearles una redacci?n alternativa para el texto que ser?a la siguiente: ?decidir con el autor si desea(n) continuar la discusi?n en el foro o abandonar la propuesta?. De esa forma queda libre lo de las versiones. Y luego habr?a que agregar en todo caso lo del reset de los meses. Saludos, Nico On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 6:11 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas < politicas at lacnic.net> wrote:
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained contribution is classified as support_with_changes for Inter-RIR Transfer Policy and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained contribution is classified as support_with_changes for Inter-RIR Transfer Policy and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Réserves: The author supports establishing an inter-RIR transfer policy but wants the proposal limited to IPv4 and structured as bidirectional rather than including IPv6.
Minor revision to the PDP · Inter-RIR Transfer Policy
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are support, support_with_changes, propose_alternative for Minor revision to the PDP and support_with_changes for Inter-RIR Transfer Policy. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
En principio estoy de acuerdo con la modificacion que se propone. Saludos, Nicolas El El vie, 14 de set. de 2018 a las 11:03, <info-politicas at lacnic.net> escribi?:
Cohérence du point de vue: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence
The retained contribution is classified as propose_alternative for Registration and validation of abuse contact and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Registration and validation of abuse contact
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The retained contribution is classified as propose_alternative for Registration and validation of abuse contact and does not establish a substantive position or consistency over time.
Réserves: Nicolas accepts the contact-registration idea with wording changes, but opposes putting the rest of the operational abuse-handling requirements into binding policy. He prefers best-practice guidance for those details. · This is partial agreement plus a different policy instrument, not full support for the proposal as written. His argument about LACNIC’s mandate and capacity is his assessment.
Inter-RIR Transfer Policy · Registration and validation of abuse contact
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are support_with_changes for Inter-RIR Transfer Policy and propose_alternative for Registration and validation of abuse contact. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Cohérence du point de vue: Mixte
The retained contributions on Simplification of the PDP vary across question_or_clarify, oppose. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.
Évaluation: Mixte · The retained contributions on Simplification of the PDP vary across question_or_clarify, oppose. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.
Réserves: Nicolas requests a version with tracked changes so he can assess the many differences against the existing PDP. The request is for clearer review material and does not establish support or opposition. · Nicolas rejects the broad reform as appropriate for the region at that time, while saying some elements may merit separate discussion. He defends the existing forum, normal timetable and expedited exception. · His historical frequency and percentage estimates are his recollection, not independently verified statistics. Interest in some individual elements does not make this support for the proposal as a whole. · Nicolas defends a cumulative consensus process involving both list discussion and the forum, and sees no urgency to reduce the forum’s role. He disputes the exclusion characterization and distinguishes consensus from simple voting. · His description of policy enforcement and legitimacy is argument, not a verified legal conclusion or a guarantee that every community member has equal access.
Hola Jordi y Staff de LACNIC, Es muy complicado comenzar a hacer un -diff- entre la versi?n actual y la propuesta porque tiene muchos cambios (aunque algunos menores). ?Podemos solicitar al proponente de la pol?tica que env?e a la lista un texto con control de cambios (o marcando los cambios en el mismo)?, de forma de poder analizarlo correcta y globalmente. Saludos, Nicolas
Cohérence du point de vue: Mixte
The retained contributions on Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users vary across question_or_clarify, support. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.
Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users
Évaluation: Mixte · The retained contributions on Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users vary across question_or_clarify, support. The record supports a mixed or conditional position rather than one stable line.
Réserves: The author offers an interpretation of the scenario and explicitly asks for renewed clarification rather than taking a position for or against the proposal. · The author supports allowing LAC-2018-8 to advance because he considers the material objections addressed.
Hola Jorge, Yo entendi todo lo contrario a lo que mencionas en ambos casos... creo que Jordi debe aclararlo nuevamente en todo caso. Entiendo que es el caso en que un organismo X se ?independiza? del ISP. Saludos, Nicolas El El mar, 22 de may. de 2018 a las 08:32, Jorge Villa <villa at reduniv.edu.cu> escribi?:
Simplification of the PDP · Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify, oppose for Simplification of the PDP and question_or_clarify, support for Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Hola Jordi y Staff de LACNIC, Es muy complicado comenzar a hacer un -diff- entre la versi?n actual y la propuesta porque tiene muchos cambios (aunque algunos menores). ?Podemos solicitar al proponente de la pol?tica que env?e a la lista un texto con control de cambios (o marcando los cambios en el mismo)?, de forma de poder analizarlo correcta y globalmente. Saludos, Nicolas
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Cohérence du point de vue: Aucune position explicite n’a été énoncée
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are procedural_or_neutral for Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment and procedural_or_neutral for Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are procedural_or_neutral for Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements and procedural_or_neutral for Update to the Policy Development Process. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are procedural_or_neutral for Update to the Policy Development Process and procedural_or_neutral, support for Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC.. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC. · Inter-RIR Transfers
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are procedural_or_neutral, support for Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC. and procedural_or_neutral for Inter-RIR Transfers. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are procedural_or_neutral for Inter-RIR Transfers and oppose for Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are oppose for Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported and question_or_clarify for Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify for Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations and question_or_clarify, support for One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC · Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify, support for One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC and question_or_clarify for Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Évaluation: Cohérent · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify for Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers and question_or_clarify for Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify for Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs and propose_alternative for Addenda − Resource revocation. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Estimados, No me queda clara la necesidad de bajar tanto el per?odo de ?ltimos comentarios. En el caso de las pol?ticas de necesidad urgente de aplicaci?n est? el proceso expeditivo... pero para el proceso normal no creo que dicho per?odo deba ser menor a 30 d?as. Es un n?mero un tanto arbitrario pero creo que nos da ciertas garant?as en el PDP. Saludos, Nicolas El El mar, 13 de jun. de 2017 a las 15:49, <info-politicas at lacnic.net> escribi?:
Addenda − Resource revocation · Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are propose_alternative for Addenda − Resource revocation and oppose for Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Estimados, No me queda clara la necesidad de bajar tanto el per?odo de ?ltimos comentarios. En el caso de las pol?ticas de necesidad urgente de aplicaci?n est? el proceso expeditivo... pero para el proceso normal no creo que dicho per?odo deba ser menor a 30 d?as. Es un n?mero un tanto arbitrario pero creo que nos da ciertas garant?as en el PDP. Saludos, Nicolas El El mar, 13 de jun. de 2017 a las 15:49, <info-politicas at lacnic.net> escribi?:
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. · Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are oppose for Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. and support, procedural_or_neutral, propose_alternative for Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR). Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Estimados, No me queda clara la necesidad de bajar tanto el per?odo de ?ltimos comentarios. En el caso de las pol?ticas de necesidad urgente de aplicaci?n est? el proceso expeditivo... pero para el proceso normal no creo que dicho per?odo deba ser menor a 30 d?as. Es un n?mero un tanto arbitrario pero creo que nos da ciertas garant?as en el PDP. Saludos, Nicolas El El mar, 13 de jun. de 2017 a las 15:49, <info-politicas at lacnic.net> escribi?:
Hola Arturo, El proceso de pol?tica global ya inici? por lo que el texto de la propuesta ya va a llegar a las listas as? que seguramente reciba comentarios al respecto. Saludos, Nicolas
Arturo, lo que digo es que como es propuesta global ya se envi? la misma al ASO y a los RIRs por lo que el texto va a llegar. El feedback de la idea es, como mencionas, lo m?s importante en eata etapa... luego si termina teniendo apoyo o no sera tema para bastante m?s adelante. Saludos, Nico
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. · Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are oppose for Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. and support, procedural_or_neutral, propose_alternative for Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR). Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Estimados, No me queda clara la necesidad de bajar tanto el per?odo de ?ltimos comentarios. En el caso de las pol?ticas de necesidad urgente de aplicaci?n est? el proceso expeditivo... pero para el proceso normal no creo que dicho per?odo deba ser menor a 30 d?as. Es un n?mero un tanto arbitrario pero creo que nos da ciertas garant?as en el PDP. Saludos, Nicolas El El mar, 13 de jun. de 2017 a las 15:49, <info-politicas at lacnic.net> escribi?:
Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR) · Minor revision to the PDP
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are support, procedural_or_neutral, propose_alternative for Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR) and support, support_with_changes, propose_alternative for Minor revision to the PDP. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
En principio estoy de acuerdo con la modificacion que se propone. Saludos, Nicolas El El vie, 14 de set. de 2018 a las 11:03, <info-politicas at lacnic.net> escribi?:
Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR) · Minor revision to the PDP
Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The supplied classifications are support, procedural_or_neutral, propose_alternative for Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR) and support, support_with_changes, propose_alternative for Minor revision to the PDP. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
En principio estoy de acuerdo con la modificacion que se propone. Saludos, Nicolas El El vie, 14 de set. de 2018 a las 11:03, <info-politicas at lacnic.net> escribi?:
Minor revision to the PDP · Inter-RIR Transfer Policy
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are support, support_with_changes, propose_alternative for Minor revision to the PDP and support_with_changes for Inter-RIR Transfer Policy. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
En principio estoy de acuerdo con la modificacion que se propone. Saludos, Nicolas El El vie, 14 de set. de 2018 a las 11:03, <info-politicas at lacnic.net> escribi?:
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are support_with_changes for Inter-RIR Transfer Policy and propose_alternative for Registration and validation of abuse contact. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are propose_alternative for Registration and validation of abuse contact and question_or_clarify, oppose for Simplification of the PDP. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Hola Jordi y Staff de LACNIC, Es muy complicado comenzar a hacer un -diff- entre la versi?n actual y la propuesta porque tiene muchos cambios (aunque algunos menores). ?Podemos solicitar al proponente de la pol?tica que env?e a la lista un texto con control de cambios (o marcando los cambios en el mismo)?, de forma de poder analizarlo correcta y globalmente. Saludos, Nicolas
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are propose_alternative for Registration and validation of abuse contact and question_or_clarify, oppose for Simplification of the PDP. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Hola Jordi y Staff de LACNIC, Es muy complicado comenzar a hacer un -diff- entre la versi?n actual y la propuesta porque tiene muchos cambios (aunque algunos menores). ?Podemos solicitar al proponente de la pol?tica que env?e a la lista un texto con control de cambios (o marcando los cambios en el mismo)?, de forma de poder analizarlo correcta y globalmente. Saludos, Nicolas
Simplification of the PDP · Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users
Évaluation: Mixte · The supplied classifications are question_or_clarify, oppose for Simplification of the PDP and question_or_clarify, support for Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users. Different policy positions alone do not prove a contradiction.
Réserves: The comparison is limited to the retained stance classifications; it does not claim identical reasons across different policy texts.
Hola Jordi y Staff de LACNIC, Es muy complicado comenzar a hacer un -diff- entre la versi?n actual y la propuesta porque tiene muchos cambios (aunque algunos menores). ?Podemos solicitar al proponente de la pol?tica que env?e a la lista un texto con control de cambios (o marcando los cambios en el mismo)?, de forma de poder analizarlo correcta y globalmente. Saludos, Nicolas
Hola Jorge, Yo entendi todo lo contrario a lo que mencionas en ambos casos... creo que Jordi debe aclararlo nuevamente en todo caso. Entiendo que es el caso en que un organismo X se ?independiza? del ISP. Saludos, Nicolas El El mar, 22 de may. de 2018 a las 08:32, Jorge Villa <villa at reduniv.edu.cu> escribi?:
Hola Jorge, Yo entendi todo lo contrario a lo que mencionas en ambos casos... creo que Jordi debe aclararlo nuevamente en todo caso. Entiendo que es el caso en que un organismo X se ?independiza? del ISP. Saludos, Nicolas El El mar, 22 de may. de 2018 a las 08:32, Jorge Villa <villa at reduniv.edu.cu> escribi?: