Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.

Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author accepts clearer old-and-new text and a stronger rationale while deliberately separating the allocation-size question from the two changes being proposed. This one reply shows willingness to refine the proposal, but supplies no sequence from which to assess a reversal or durable consistency.

Réserves: Support for this limited change does not endorse a separate size change or every later draft.

10 mars 2016

Mi idea en esta propuesta es SOLO tocar los dos puntos indicados.

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Évaluation: Cohérent · From March 2016 through May 2017 the author seeks an aggregated, realistic IPv6 plan for government and other nontraditional networks. His preferred mechanism evolves: he first argues for differentiated non-ISP treatment, offers an alternative at the community's request, and finally abandons this proposal because the common mechanism serves the same objective with less complexity. The withdrawal is explained rather than an unexplained rejection of the objective.

Réserves: The initial willingness to withdraw depended on staff confirming that the existing rule already permitted the case; it was not an actual March withdrawal. · The later report of community consensus is not independent evidence of final ratification or implementation. · Claims about government allocations and regional experience are the author's examples and assertions.

18 mars 2016

Y creo que no es conveniente tener tantas pol?ticas como ?casos?.

17 août 2016

Mi propuesta pretende aclarar esta situacion, con una categoria nueva diferente de ISP, aunque es muy similar a un ISP.

24 mai 2017

que evitamos con un solo mecanismo para justificar los recursos

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Évaluation: Cohérent · The November correction changes the stated horizon from the organization's life expectancy to the allocation's expected longevity. The author acknowledges an overlooked drafting error and explains why the latter better bounds the addressing plan. This is a real correction with an explanation, not evidence that every earlier version already said the same thing.

Réserves: The author's account of his original intention cannot erase the earlier organization-longevity wording.

29 août 2016

El plan de direccionamiento ha de tener en cuenta la longevidad prevista de la organizaci?n.

22 nov. 2016

nunca fue la intenci?n que la longevidad fuera de la organizaci?n, sino de la distribuci?n inicial

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Évaluation: Mixte · The August university example calls a university with several providers not an end user, yet immediately says each university could obtain its own /32 under the end-user policy. Elsewhere the distinction turns on assigning resources to separate organizations. The example therefore contains an unresolved classification ambiguity; it does not establish that multihoming alone changes an organization into an LIR.

Réserves: This concerns the precision of the example, not a demonstrated reversal of the objective of aggregated national-network addressing. · No supplied follow-up expressly reconciles those two descriptions of the university.

30 août 2016

necesita direccionamiento propio y obviamente NO es un usuario final.

30 août 2016

Si aplican a la pol?tica de usuario final, podr?an obtener, cada una de ellas su propio /32.

31 mars 2016

asignar direcciones? a terceros

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Évaluation: Cohérent · The author presents the common ISP/LIR rule as an explicit alternative, explains its longer-horizon planning benefit, and later favors it over separate categories because it achieves the shared aim more simply. Offering two mutually exclusive community choices is not support for adopting conflicting rules simultaneously.

Réserves: This entails a change from preserving the commercial-ISP time limit to accepting a common mechanism; the design preference did evolve. · The source describes community consensus, not proof of all subsequent implementation steps.

3 oct. 2016

Mi idea es ofrecer AMBAS alternativas para que la comunidad decida.

3 oct. 2016

Por supuesto que la idea no es que se aprueben las dos, sino una u otra.

24 mai 2017

v?lido para ambos casos.

Rectifying the size of initial allocations

Évaluation: Cohérent · The sequence consistently supports a one-time correction of an inadequate initial IPv6 allocation to avoid renumbering. It preserves the ordinary subsequent-allocation procedure, acknowledges that contiguous space may not remain available, and leaves end-user inclusion open if relevant cases are presented. Encouraging discussion is separate from this substantive advocacy.

Réserves: The residential /64 remark is a reductio, not a recommendation to reduce customer assignments. · The /33 example and worldwide adoption fraction are not independently established technical or statistical evidence. · Future contiguous allocations are not guaranteed.

2 mars 2017

No se trata de evitar que haya ?nuevas asignaciones? en el futuro, pero si dar la oportunidad de ?corregir? la primera por una sola vez.

5 mars 2017

ser?a muy sencillo actualizar la propuesta para incluir ese caso.

7 mars 2017

ahora pague por ello el cliente.

Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.

Évaluation: Cohérent · The author repeats a preference for 30 calendar days, finds discretionary chair-adjusted intervals too subjective, and then proposes a broader list-based consensus process. The broader process discussion does not endorse the specific 20-day option or retract the stated 30-day preference within this exchange.

Réserves: The comparative timing list is supplied by another participant. · The claimed benefits of avoiding meeting delays are advocacy, not measured outcomes.

14 juin 2017

creo que 30 d?as naturales ser?a suficiente y siempre m?s f?cil de contar.

14 juin 2017

Me refuerza en mi punto de vista de 30 d?as.

14 juin 2017

la decisi?n del consenso (igual que en IETF) se toma en la lista, no en el meeting

MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The single contribution welcomes correction of an end user's initial allocation while proposing clearer language about contiguous expansion, unavailable adjacent space, and the choice to renumber earlier. It establishes a conditional design preference, not longitudinal consistency or endorsement of every provision.

Réserves: The suggested wording is a proposal, not evidence that it was incorporated into an adopted text.

3 août 2017

Me parece buena idea la propuesta, sin embargo, tengo una duda.

3 août 2017

que si lo desea renumere ahora en lugar de luego

Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author advocates aligning subsequent IPv6 allocation criteria with the revised initial-allocation criteria so earlier recipients are not disadvantaged. Only one contribution is supplied, so persistence or reversal within this proposal cannot be assessed.

Réserves: The quoted announcement distinguishes consensus from pending board ratification; the author's shorthand about approval does not prove implementation.

7 août 2017

Mi propuesta simplemente incorpora *el mismo* texto que se aprob? para las distribuciones iniciales en las distribuciones subsiguientes

Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option)

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · This contribution supports a substantive rather than numerical understanding of consensus and associates that objective with the author's PDP proposal. It does not reproduce all the process provisions or provide a time series of positions on this proposal.

Réserves: The definition quoted from the PDP is attributed material; the author's explicit endorsement is the evidence of his position. · No stance on an unrelated later proposal follows from the discussion.

25 juil. 2018

para evitar que se entienda como "mas votos" a favor o "en contra", cuando en realidad quiere decir que no haya objeciones que no sean respondidas.

Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end users

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author supports removing the IPv4 end-user multihoming requirement and explains that this component was split from a combined proposal after feedback. This single statement cannot show whether the position persisted or changed later.

Réserves: The alignment with IPv6 is his stated rationale. · Neither the split nor the request for feedback establishes consensus on this component.

13 août 2018

La LAC-2018-11, simplemente elimina el requisito de multihoming para IPv4 para ser usuario final

Minor revision to the PDP

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author regards an explicit restart clause as redundant but accepts wording that restarts the eight-week discussion period in every case. Calling it a clarification while accepting it is not opposition, but one reply cannot establish consistency across subsequent revisions.

Réserves: A proposed revision or offered new version is not proof of adoption. · The rule being discussed is a failed-consensus restart, not the length of last call.

14 sept. 2018

Luego, bajo mi punto de vista, es *redundante* poner que se reinician los plazos.

14 sept. 2018

En cualquier caso, se reiniciar?a el plazo de debate de 8 semanas.

Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author supplies a comparison link and explains its colors to facilitate review. The message contains neither the comparison itself nor a substantive sequence of positions, so it cannot support a finding about consistency of the proposed IPv6 corrections.

Réserves: Authorship and assistance with presentation are not endorsement of every unseen change.

28 févr. 2018

La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo), y la de la derecha (color verde), como quedar?a con los cambios que propongo.

Registration and validation of abuse contact

Évaluation: Cohérent · Across the discussion the author continues to seek registered, usable abuse contacts and periodic validation. He accepts clarification of validation triggers, discusses longer intervals and grace periods, and considers splitting disputed components. By September he favors stating the validation objective while leaving the operational procedure to LACNIC. Those are substantive refinements around a persistent objective.

Réserves: The final interval and precise consequences of failed validation are not settled by these replies. · General agreement with a suggested revision does not adopt every sanction in the quoted reply. · Predictions of court victories and civil liability remain the author's historical claims, not verified legal conclusions.

8 mars 2018

Totalmente de acuerdo en lo que propones del punto 12.4

13 août 2018

Que se verifican autom?ticamente cada cierto tiempo, con un proceso automatizado desde LACNIC

26 sept. 2018

es mejor que el procedimiento lo defina LACNIC.

Registration and validation of abuse contact

Évaluation: Cohérent · The objection to automated abuse contacts concerns systems that ignore email and force victims into incompatible forms. The author expressly supports automatic initial reports and automatic or semi-automatic processing that responds. Read together, the broad phrase against automation is qualified by this functional distinction, not a ban on all automation.

Réserves: Claims about reporting volume, regional response rates, and negligible validation cost are not measured evidence in this corpus. · The proposal distinguishes common reporting access from the ISP's own contractual treatment of a customer.

13 août 2018

eso implica que no sean automatizados

13 août 2018

Lo razonable es que el primer contacto de abuso, por parte de la v?ctima, pueda ser procesado de forma autom?tica.

13 août 2018

procesar ese email de forma autom?tica o semi-autom?tica y RESPONDEN.

Simplification of the PDP

Évaluation: Cohérent · The author consistently prioritizes participation in consensus by the whole community. His initial list-only design would remove the expedited track, but he subsequently offers to retain forum presentation and the expedited process, or combine list and forum, if remote participants have equal standing. This is a conditional compromise, not abandonment of the objective.

Réserves: The offered changes are not evidence that a revised text was actually published or approved. · Replacing the word discriminatory with exclusionary softens the description without removing the stated objection. · The illustrative participation percentages and accounts of prior forums are not independently verified measurements.

14 mars 2018

El objetivo es que el consenso se alcance en la lista, y no en el foro

14 mars 2018

y entonces mantener el proceso expeditivo

15 mars 2018

hacer que el consenso sea de lista+foro en lugar de solo lista o solo foro

Clarifications of Sub-Assignments

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author seeks an exception for temporary addressing of guests, employees or students while retaining the distinction from permanent connectivity service. He explicitly asks whether to cap that exception at a /64 or leave size open. Presenting these alternatives does not choose either one, and there is no later position here to compare.

Réserves: Other regions are contextual references, not evidence that a particular LACNIC alternative was adopted.

13 août 2018

La diferencia es limitar esto a un m?ximo de un /64, o dejarlo abierto.

Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users

Évaluation: Cohérent · The May contribution defends avoiding disruptive end-user renumbering; the August explanation preserves that objective while describing the simplified transfer component after the multihoming question was separated. The split changes the packaging, not the stated purpose of enabling the existing user to keep its addressing.

Réserves: The quoted participant's uncertainty is not the author's own neutral position. · An ISP proposal's reported consensus does not establish consensus for the end-user proposal.

22 mai 2018

un end-user puede tener requisitos que le impiden renumerar

13 août 2018

un ISP "ceda" con un sistema simplificado de transferencias, el direccionamiento al usuario final que lo usa.

Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs

Évaluation: Cohérent · The author repeatedly defends voluntary transfer of the same addressing to avoid renumbering and argues that the routing and cost consequences are comparable to ordinary transfers. The later offer to replace ceder with transferir makes his intended mechanism explicit rather than reversing it.

Réserves: His routing-equivalence argument is contested advocacy, not an independently measured network outcome. · The half-joking routing-table remark is not a policy commitment; the rhetorical question about abolishing transfers is not a repeal proposal. · The participating organizations must agree and an authorized representative must approve; no unilateral right is asserted.

3 avr. 2018

tiene que haber acuerdo entre ambas partes.

3 mai 2018

pero resuelve el problema de evitar la renumeraci?n.

30 mai 2018

poner transferir en lugar de ceder.

PDP Chair Election Procedure

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author acknowledges missing a response deadline and agrees that further versions may be needed. This procedural exchange does not establish support for every chair-election provision, a substantive reversal, or a declaration of consensus.

Réserves: A preference for immediate replies is not a position on each election rule. · A shared email subject does not by itself attribute a stance on another proposal.

24 juin 2019

Mi respuesta no negaba una versi?n 2 o 3 o las que hagan falta

Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual

Évaluation: Éléments insuffisants pour évaluer la cohérence · The author favors a side-by-side comparison tool, downloadable text and PDF, and room for exceptional formats. This is agreement about how to discuss a proposal, not evidence of support or opposition to its resource-recovery provisions or a later policy outcome.

Réserves: No substantive recovery-rule consistency judgment can be inferred from agreement with the tooling suggestion.

12 juil. 2019

Yo desde luego votar?a por un sistema que muestre ?lado a lado? en la web

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Évaluation: Cohérent · The separate-category and common-rule proposals are competing mechanisms for the same planning objective. The author expressly presents them as alternatives, then explains abandoning the more complex category approach after the common rule received community support. The record documents a reasoned change in preferred mechanism rather than simultaneous contradictory commitments.

Réserves: A consistent objective does not mean identical eligibility criteria across the two designs. · The final implementation status is outside what these statements establish.

3 oct. 2016

Mi idea es ofrecer AMBAS alternativas para que la comunidad decida.

24 mai 2017

esta pol?tica se abandona, porque el objetivo que persegu?a se cumple igualmente con la LAC-2016-7

Rectifying the size of initial allocations · MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS

Évaluation: Cohérent · The initial-correction discussion explicitly leaves end-user inclusion open if cases are raised. The later welcome for an end-user correction mechanism is compatible with that openness and with the repeated concern about avoidable renumbering; it is not a reversal from categorical exclusion of end users.

Réserves: The two proposals address different recipient classes. · The emails do not independently establish the frequency of end-user cases.

5 mars 2017

ser?a muy sencillo actualizar la propuesta para incluir ese caso.

3 août 2017

Me parece buena idea la propuesta, sin embargo, tengo una duda.

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6

Évaluation: Cohérent · Support for a common initial-allocation rule is followed by advocacy of matching subsequent-allocation criteria, expressly to avoid disadvantaging earlier recipients. These are complementary positions on the same planning issue.

Réserves: The comparison concerns the author's rationale, not proof of ratification or deployment.

24 mai 2017

v?lido para ambos casos.

7 août 2017

dejar?a en desventaja a quien haya obtenido una distribuci?n inicial *antes* de la reciente aprobaci?n del cambio.

Rectifying the size of initial allocations · Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6

Évaluation: Cohérent · Saying the initial-correction proposal does not change subsequent allocations is a statement about that proposal's scope. Advocating a separate subsequent-allocation revision later does not contradict it or promise that the rules would never change.

Réserves: Distinct proposals and dates must remain separate.

2 mars 2017

no cambiamos, con esta propuesta, subsiguientes asignaciones

7 août 2017

el texto de subsiguientes distribuciones, al probarse este cambio, queda desfasado.

Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. · Simplification of the PDP

Évaluation: Cohérent · The 2017 preference for list-based consensus carries into the later PDP redesign and its equal-participation rationale. Details do change: the earlier preference is 30 calendar days, while the later outline gives a four-week last call. The later emphasis on inclusion rather than speed narrows the stated priority without negating the earlier observation that meetings can delay a decision.

Réserves: Do not describe the two timing specifications as identical. · The asserted benefits and participation problems are the author's reasoning, not measured causal findings.

14 juin 2017

creo que 30 d?as naturales ser?a suficiente y siempre m?s f?cil de contar.

14 juin 2017

ello permite participar a quienes no necesariamente viajan

14 mars 2018

un "last call" de 4 semanas

15 mars 2018

El objetivo principal es facilitar la participaci?n de *toda la comunidad* en igualdad de condiciones

Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option) · Simplification of the PDP

Évaluation: Cohérent · The later explanation that consensus is not a count of votes matches the earlier PDP reform argument for evaluating substantive objections and including list participants. No reversal of that conception of consensus is shown.

Réserves: Endorsement of this principle does not establish agreement with every procedural provision.

25 juil. 2018

para evitar que se entienda como "mas votos" a favor o "en contra"

14 mars 2018

definir "consenso" (que no es un cuenteo de votos).

Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users · Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs

Évaluation: Cohérent · Both the ISP and end-user discussions pursue retention of existing addressing through an agreed transfer to avoid renumbering. The author separates the recipient classes while using the same operational rationale; support in one discussion is not evidence of consensus in the other.

Réserves: The effect on routing remains a debated claim.

22 mai 2018

un end-user puede tener requisitos que le impiden renumerar

3 mai 2018

pero resuelve el problema de evitar la renumeraci?n.

Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end users · Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users

Évaluation: Cohérent · The author explains dividing the combined end-user proposal into transfer and multihoming components after community feedback. Supporting both as separate proposals is coherent; it does not imply either had been adopted.

Réserves: This is an explicitly described change in proposal structure, not an inferred change from a shared subject line.

13 août 2018

afrontara cada problema con una propuesta especifica y as? lo hice ese mismo d?a.

13 août 2018

La LAC-2018-11, simplemente elimina el requisito de multihoming para IPv4 para ser usuario final

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Clarifications of Sub-Assignments

Évaluation: Cohérent · The earlier end-user/LIR distinction concerns assignment to separate institutions in a national network. The later sub-assignment clarification explicitly distinguishes temporary guest or employee connectivity from permanent service. These scopes can coexist; the later temporary-use exception does not establish that permanent distribution to other organizations was reclassified as end-user use.

Réserves: The imprecise university wording in the earlier example remains an uncertainty, not a basis for a categorical identity rule. · The later message leaves the /64 size alternative undecided.

31 mars 2016

El gobierno aplicar?a por end user SI la asignaci?n de direcciones fuera SOLO a entidades de la MISMA entidad

13 août 2018

Simplemente se considera que debe ser "temporal" y por tanto no un servicio de "banda ancha".

Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy · Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual

Évaluation: Cohérent · Providing a policy diff and later favoring side-by-side comparisons show a compatible preference for making textual changes easier to inspect. That narrow presentation preference supplies no evidence of consistency on the substantive IPv6 or resource-recovery provisions.

Réserves: Only the presentation practice is compared here.

28 févr. 2018

La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo)

12 juil. 2019

Yo desde luego votar?a por un sistema que muestre ?lado a lado? en la web