Commencez ici pour consulter l’historique, proposition par proposition : ce qui a changé, pourquoi cela comptait, qui a défendu quoi, comment les positions ont évolué, ce qui a été décidé et quelles lacunes subsistent dans les preuves.
Faits sourcés
Identifiant
LAC-2019-7
RIR
LACNIC
Statut officiel
Abandoned
Statut normalisé
Abandonnée
Introduction
Inconnue
Dernière mise à jour des sources
13 oct. 2026
Couverture
Partielle
Qui a réellement façonné le débat ?
3Total des participants
3Contributeurs à la discussion
1Acteurs formels
5Messages de discussion
2,3Entités effectives
100 %Part des cinq premiers
1Personnes couvrant 50 %
2Personnes couvrant 80 %
Analyse BTW
Analyse BTW
Ce qui a changé
LAC-2019-7 proposait de modifier l'élection des présidents du PDP. Les huit versions conservées comportent des révisions de fond. La version 8 exige six mois d'inscription à la liste pour les candidats et les électeurs, rattache les candidatures au contact d'adhésion d'une organisation membre et prévoit incompatibilités, exclusions et annulation du scrutin. Elle fait du conseil d'administration l'instance suprême de recours, avec délégation possible à une commission électorale. Par rapport à la version 7, elle rétablit la réélection sans limite et restreint l'interdiction d'utiliser la liste à la campagne électorale. Il s'agit de dispositions proposées, sans preuve de leur mise en œuvre.
Objet réel du débat
Le débat porte sur la protection des élections sans transformer un processus communautaire ouvert en contrôle institutionnel accru. Le texte invoque des ingérences et des risques de fraude sans les établir indépendamment. Un correspondant critique, dans trois messages, la complexité et les nouvelles responsabilités du conseil, tout en admettant l'intérêt d'une simple condition d'ancienneté sur la liste. Un autre soutient sous conditions une procédure définie de publication des soutiens aux candidats, notamment contre les soutiens inventés. Une troisième réponse concerne la procédure et les versions à venir, sans établir un soutien de fond à l'ensemble.
Arguments retenus
Les éléments disponibles ne désignent aucun argument vainqueur. L'abandon ne prouve pas que les objections à la complexité ou au contrôle institutionnel ont déterminé l'issue.
Arguments non retenus
LACNIC indique que la proposition a été abandonnée : l'adoption de la réforme complète n'est donc pas établie. Cela ne prouve pas que chaque garantie a été rejetée sur le fond.
Décision et débat
La page de LACNIC date l'abandon du 22 août 2022. Les cinq messages rattachés vont de mai 2019 à juin 2020 : ils établissent un débat antérieur à 2021, sans expliquer l'issue ultérieure. Une réponse procédurale, un soutien conditionnel à un mécanisme et une opposition au dispositif global ne forment pas un vote binaire.
Concentration de la participation
Le corpus conservé contient cinq messages de trois participants sur quatre jours d'activité. Une personne en a écrit trois, soit 60 % ; le HHI des parts de messages vaut 0,44, l'équivalent d'environ 2,27 participants également actifs. Ces chiffres décrivent un corpus incomplet, pas la communauté entière, les droits de vote ou le pouvoir de décision. Des objections répétées par une personne ne représentent pas trois opposants indépendants.
Analyse du point de contrôle
L'ancienneté de six mois et le parrainage par un contact d'adhésion détermineraient l'accès au scrutin. Les exclusions pour campagne ou indices suffisants de fraude donneraient du poids à l'interprétation et à l'application des règles. Le recours ultime au conseil concentrerait le contrôle, tandis que la délégation modifierait son exercice. La réélection illimitée pourrait favoriser la continuité et les titulaires. Ce sont des effets possibles du projet, pas des abus constatés ni des pouvoirs adoptés.
Incertitudes
La date initiale et les dates exactes de publication des huit versions restent non vérifiées. Le 30 août 2021 est une date de dernière modification de la page, pas la date d'origine démontrée de la proposition ou de toutes ses versions.
Le débat complet et les motifs de l'abandon manquent encore ; de nouvelles preuves peuvent modifier l'analyse de la participation et des causes.
Des caractères accentués de certains courriels sont altérés et certaines identités publiques restent indéterminées. Les opinions citées ne doivent pas être attribuées à l'auteur d'une réponse.
PDP chair role incompatibilities · The proposed incompatibility rule changes from barring other positions within RIR/NIR, ICANN, TLD, or similar organizational structures to barring roles directly involved in any phase of the policy development process. The new wording also expressly provides that an elected candidate will cease in, or not assume, the incompatible role as specified in the nomination.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Candidate membership qualification and nomination support · Candidate qualification changes from being a LACNIC member or being supported by two LACNIC members to being the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or being nominated by two such membership contacts.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Electoral use of the Public Policy List and disqualification · The rule requiring candidates to comply strictly with the AUP and allowing supporter AUP violations to disqualify a candidate is replaced by a rule under which electoral use of the list, including by candidate supporters, may result in disqualification at the chairs' discretion when there is evidence of collusion.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Fraud findings and invalidation of the election process · The fraud provision is revised to apply at any time during the process and expressly permits disqualification of implicated candidates or invalidation and repetition of the entire process. The revised text directs that the replacement timeline align the election results as closely as possible with the following Public Policy Forum.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Runoff election trigger · Runoff voting is expanded beyond a tie between leading candidates. In an election with more than two candidates, a runoff between the top two candidates is also required when the leading candidate's margin is less than 10%.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Assessment of post-result objections · The objection standard changes from assessing whether objections are significant to assessing whether they are both significant and proven. The ratification condition is also rephrased so ratification proceeds if no objections are raised or the chairs decide not to consider them.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Recusal of a chair who is a candidate · A candidate-chair's recusal expands from abstaining only as chair during ratification to abstaining from every aspect of the election process. The revised text additionally requires the Board of Directors to appoint one or two non-candidate community members, as applicable, to chair the process.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Election appeals · The supplied new text adds that the LACNIC Board of Directors is the highest instance of appeal for matters relating to the election process; the supplied old text contains no corresponding appeal provision.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Candidate nomination sponsorship · The candidate sponsorship alternative changes from nomination by "two membership contact" of a single LACNIC member organization to nomination by two membership contacts of LACNIC member organizations, clarifying that two contacts are required and allowing the wording to encompass multiple organizations.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Chair reelection eligibility · The old text says chairs are "illegible" to run again after a one-year pause; the new text says they are "eligible" to run again. This reverses the literal eligibility rule after the pause.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Voter eligibility and voter registry controls · The fixed rule allowing participation by anyone who had been on the Public Policy List for at least six months is replaced by a voter-registry anti-tampering provision under which efforts will be made to exclude election-only subscribers, with a subscription cutoff of an unspecified number of months offered as an example.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
One-vote safeguard · The electronic-voting safeguard changes from an unqualified requirement to use mechanisms ensuring one vote per voter to a requirement to ensure this only "to the extent possible."
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Electoral misuse of the Public Policy List · Disqualification for collusive electoral use of the list is no longer expressly stated to be at the discretion of the chairs; the new text retains possible disqualification where there is evidence of collusion without identifying that decision-maker in this provision.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Fraud findings and process invalidation authority · The old text expressly assigns the chairs responsibility for determining whether sufficient indications of fraud exist and authority to disqualify candidates or invalidate the process. The new text uses impersonal or passive language and no longer expressly assigns those decisions to the chairs.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Candidate acceptance announcement · The announcement provision changes from publishing the names of "acceptable candidates" to publishing the names of candidates who meet all requirements and have been accepted, expressly linking publication to satisfaction of the requirements and acceptance.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Community information about candidates and Board disqualification · The old text allows community submissions consisting of expressions of support and information for objections and requires simultaneous publication. The new text instead conditions publication on confirmation of the information and expressly authorizes the Board to disqualify one or more candidates based on that information.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Tie definition and runoff threshold · The old text triggers a runoff for an exact tie or, when there are more than two candidates, when the leading margin is below 10%. The new text defines any difference below 10% as a tie and provides for a runoff between the top two when there are more than two candidates.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Objections and ratification authority · Responsibility for receiving objections, assessing whether they are significant and proven, and ratifying the winner shifts from the acting chairs to the LACNIC Board.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Recusal and replacement when a chair is a candidate · The old text requires a chair who is running to abstain from every aspect of the election process and requires the Board to appoint one or two non-candidate community members to chair the process. The new text omits this recusal-and-replacement provision while assigning the objection and ratification decision to the Board.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.
Restrictions on the two PDP Chairs' affiliations · The restriction preventing both chairs from being from the same country was replaced by a restriction preventing them from being from the same company or the same or related companies. The former exception also specified how one chair would cease serving at the following election, while the replacement exception contains no corresponding cessation procedure.
Faits sourcés −
irs may not be from the same country, except in exceptional situations where there are no other acceptable candidates, in which case one of the chairs will cease in their position in the following election process (the following year), either because their term has come to an end or by agreement among the two chairs, failing which the chair who has held the position the longest will automatically cease in their position. o Thes
rs may not be from the same company or from the same or related companies, except in exceptional cases where there are no other acceptable candidates. o Their wo
Nature and compensation of Chair work · The positions were described as honorary; the replacement text expressly describes the work as voluntary and unpaid.
Candidate residency and member-contact nomination requirements · Candidate eligibility changed from being a LACNIC member-organization contact or being nominated by two such contacts to residing in the region for more than half the year and being either a member-organization contact or nominated by one such contact.
Faits sourcés −
un for the position, a candidate must be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or, alternately, they must be nominated by two membership contacts of LACNIC member organizations. o PDP
es to the position must reside in the region more than 50% of the year and they must be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or nominated by one such contact. o PDP Chai
Voter-registry subscription cutoff · The illustrative cutoff based on subscribers who joined an unspecified “n” months before the process was replaced by a fixed requirement that subscribers have joined at least six months before the process.
Faits sourcés −
hat the voters registry consists of the subscribers to the Public Policy List, in order to avoid tampering, efforts will be made to keep participants who subscribe solely for the election process from participating in each election, for example, by limiting the voters registry to those who have subscribed “n” months prior to the start of said process. o Any use
e voters registry consists of the subscribers to the Public Policy List, in order to avoid tampering, efforts will be made to keep participants who subscribe solely for the election process from participating in each election by limiting the voters registry to those who have subscribed at least six months prior to the start of said process. o Any use of the
Delegation of election-process functions · A provision was added allowing the Board of Directors to delegate its election-process functions to a Fiscal Commission or equivalent body; the prior text proceeded directly from the Board's appellate authority to additional information.
Faits sourcés −
NIC Board is the highest instance of appeal in matters relating to the election process. Additional information - Timetable
ard is the highest instance of appeal in matters relating to the election process. o The Board of Directors may delegate its functions relate to the election process to a Fiscal Commission or its equivalent. Additional infor
Implementation timetable · The timetable field changed from “Immediate implementation” to a dash, with no timetable value stated in the supplied replacement text.
PDP Chair candidate eligibility and nomination requirements · The candidate requirement no longer states that candidates must reside in the region more than 50% of the year. It instead requires a candidate to be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or to be nominated by such a membership contact.
Faits sourcés −
didates to the position must reside in the region more than 50% of the year and they must be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or nominated by one such contact. o PDP
run for the position, a candidate must be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or nominated by the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization. o PDP
PDP Chair re-election limits · The re-election rule changes from allowing only one consecutive term followed by a one-year pause to allowing re-election once and renewed eligibility after a period of at least one year.
Faits sourcés −
Chairs will each serve a two-year term, with one position up for renewal each year. PDP Chairs may only be re-elected for one consecutive term, but are eligible to run again after a one-year pause. o Can
Chairs will each serve a two-year term, with one position up for renewal each year. PDP Chairs may be re-elected once, but are eligible to run again after a period of at least one year. o Can
Restrictions on chairs' country and organizational affiliation · The restriction changed from prohibiting chairs from the same or related companies to prohibiting chairs from the same country or from the same or related organizations, while retaining an exception when no other acceptable candidates exist.
Faits sourcés −
o The Chairs may not be from the same company or from the same or related companies, except in exceptional cases where there are no other acceptable candidates.
3.2.2.3. The chairs may not be from the same country, or from the same or related organizations, except in exceptional cases where there are no other acceptable candidates.
Use of the Public Policy List for electoral purposes · The earlier text tied possible disqualification to electoral use of the list by persons supportive of a candidate where collusion was evidenced. The revised text expressly prohibits electoral use of the list, including expressions for or against candidates, and specifies that proven collusion with a candidate may disqualify that candidate.
Faits sourcés −
Any use of the list for electoral purposes, even by persons clearly supportive of a candidate, may result in their disqualification if there is evidence of collusion.
.2.3.4. Any use of the list for electoral purposes is not allowed, including expressions for or against the candidates. If evidence of collusion with a candidate is found, this may result in the candidate's disqualification.
Election process scheduling · The fixed schedule requiring a call for candidates on the first day of the month three full months before the term ends, with a 28-to-31-day nomination phase, was replaced by a requirement to begin sufficiently early to permit completion before the outgoing chair's term ends even if the process must be repeated.
Faits sourcés −
o The election process begins with a call for candidates issued on the 1st day of the month three full months prior to the end of the term of the chair that is to cease in their position. This phase will remain open for 28 to 31 days, depending on the length of the particular month during which it takes place.
3.2.3.6. The election process will begin with sufficient anticipation such that, even if the process were to be repeated, there will be enough time for it to be completed before the end of the term of the outgoing chair.
Community information concerning candidates · The fixed ten-day community-information period, mandatory simultaneous publication of confirmed information, and resulting Board disqualification authority were replaced by a period of at least ten days for submitting relevant information to the Board, with the Board empowered to decide on its use, publication, and potential disqualification.
Faits sourcés −
o A period of ten calendar days will then begin during which the community will be able to contribute relevant information on the candidates. If confirmed, this information will be published simultaneously for all candidates on the first working day following the end of the ten-day period. Based on such information, the Board may proceed to disqualify one or more candidates.
3.2.3.8. A period of no less than ten calendar days will then begin during which the community may communicate to the Board of Directors information on any of the candidates which they consider relevant to the election. The potential use and publication of such information and even a potential disqualification are within the powers of the Board of Directors
Voting period · The requirement that voting begin on the first working Monday after the preceding period and remain open for exactly seven calendar days was replaced by a requirement that voting remain open for no less than seven calendar days, without the prior Monday-based start rule.
Faits sourcés −
o Voting will begin on the first working Monday after the period specified above and will remain open for seven calendar days.
Winner determination and runoff voting · The earlier rule treated a vote difference below 10% as a tie and conditionally required a runoff between the two leading candidates. The revised rule elects the candidate with the most votes, limits runoff voting to an actual tie between the two highest tied candidates, and requires the runoff to remain open for at least seven calendar days.
Faits sourcés −
o A difference of less than 10% will be considered a tie. In this case, if there are more than two candidates, runoff voting among the two candidates with the highest number of votes will begin the following working Monday and will remain open for seven calendar days.
3.2.3.10. The candidate with the highest number of votes will be elected. In the event of a tie, runoff voting among the two candidates who tied with the highest number of votes will begin and will remain open for a period of not less than seven cal
Announcement of voting results · The requirement for LACNIC to announce first-round and applicable runoff results immediately was replaced by a requirement to announce each voting round's result as soon as feasible.
Faits sourcés −
o LACNIC will immediately announce the results of the first voting round as well as those of the runoff vote if applicable.
Current-text vacancy replacement term · In the quoted current text, the prior statement that a person elected after a failed ratification serves only the remainder of the original term is replaced by a statement that the Board-appointed chair serves only until an election can be held and a winner ratified.
Faits sourcés −
o If a winner is not ratified, the LACNIC Board will appoint a chair to fill the vacant position until the following Public Policy Forum. The next time an election and ratification process can be held, the person elected will only fill the position for the remainder of the original term.
o If a winner is not ratified, the LACNIC Board will appoint a chair to fill the vacant position until the following Public Policy Forum. The person thus appointed will only fill the position until the next time an election can be held and a is winner ratified.
Incompatible roles for PDP Chairs · The proposed incompatibility rule is revised from roles involved in any phase of the policy-development process to roles directly involved in its flow, with the Electoral Commission and Board of Directors added as examples; the procedure for relinquishing an incompatible role is also rephrased.
Faits sourcés −
3.2.2.2. The position is not compatible with other roles that are directly involved in the flow of the policy development process in any of its phases. If this were the case, the candidate's nomination must specify how they will solve this situation should they be elected Thus, if they are elected, they will automatically cease in (or not take possession of, as the case may be) such incompatible positions, as specified in their nomination. 3
3.2.2.2. The position is not compatible with other roles that are directly involved in the flow of the policy development process (e.g., the Electoral Commission or the Board of Directors). If this situation were to occur, the candidate's nomination must specify how they will solve this situation should they be elected, in which case they will automatically cease in (or not take possession of, as the case may be) the incompatible positions, as specified in their nomination.
Geographic and organizational diversity of Chairs · The proposed restriction preventing both Chairs from being from the same country or the same or related organizations, except when no other acceptable candidates exist, is removed.
Faits sourcés −
.2.2.3. The chairs may not be from the same country, or from the same or related organizations, except in exceptional cases where there are no other acceptable candidates. 3
Voter registry eligibility · The voter-registry rule changes from an effort-based mechanism intended to exclude election-only subscribers to a categorical statement that the registry comprises persons who subscribed at least six months before the election process began.
Faits sourcés −
. 3.2.3.3. Given that the voters registry consists of the subscribers to the Public Policy List, in order to avoid tampering, efforts will be made to keep participants who subscribe solely for the election process from participating in each election by limiting the voters registry to those who have subscribed at least six months prior to the start of said process.
. 3.2.3.3. The voters’ registry will be comprised of those persons who subscribed to the Public Policy List at least six months prior to the start of the election proce
Use of the Public Policy List for electoral purposes · The blanket prohibition on electoral use of the list, including expressions for or against candidates, is replaced by a prohibition that expressly excepts LACNIC announcements. Candidate disqualification is changed from being tied to evidence of collusion to being a possible consequence of noncompliance generally.
Faits sourcés −
3.2.3.4. Any use of the list for electoral purposes is not allowed, including expressions for or against the candidates. If evidence of collusion with a candidate is found, this may result in the candidate's disqualific
ss. 3.2.3.4. With the exception of announcements by LACNIC, using the list for electoral purposes is forbidden. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the disqualification of the candida
Fraud remedies and repeat-election timing · The fraud provision is condensed. It retains possible candidate disqualification and election invalidation but removes the explicit requirement that LACNIC repeat the entire process and the requirement to align the repeated election results as closely as possible with the following Public Policy Forum.
Faits sourcés −
ation. 3.2.3.5. If at any time during the process it is determined that there are sufficient indications of fraud, the candidate or candidates in question may be disqualified. If necessary, they may even invalidate the entire process and request that LACNIC repeat the process in its entirety, in which case a timeline will be set such that the timing of the election results will coincide as much as possible with the following Public Policy F
tes. 3.2.3.5. If at any time during the process it is determined that there are sufficient indications of fraud, the candidate or candidates in question may be disqualified, and the election process may be invalidated and a new one reques
Election scheduling, candidate publication, and community review · The proposed requirements to start elections sufficiently early for a repeat process, publish the accepted candidates, and provide at least ten calendar days for community submissions about candidates are removed.
Faits sourcés −Les éléments de preuve validés ne sont pas disponibles.Faits sourcés +
ted. 3.2.3.6. Elected chairs will begin their term immediately after the closing of the following Public Policy Fo
Voting duration, winner determination, runoff, and result announcements · The proposed minimum seven-day voting period, highest-vote winner rule, minimum seven-day runoff procedure for ties, and prompt announcement of each voting round are removed.
Faits sourcés −
ctors. 3.2.3.9. Voting will be open for a period of not less than seven calendar days. 3.2.3.10. The candidate with the highest number of votes will be elected. In the event of a tie, runoff voting among the two candidates who tied with the highest number of votes will begin and will remain open for a period of not less than seven calendar days. 3.2.3.11. The result of each voting round will be announced as soon as feas
Objections and Board ratification procedure · The proposed seven-day period for objections, Board assessment of whether objections are significant and proven, and express Board ratification of the winning candidate are removed.
Faits sourcés −
ible. 3.2.3.12. If any objections are raised by a member of the community, such objections must be communicated to the Board within seven calendar days of the announcement of the results. In this case, the Board will assess whether such objections are significant and have been proven. If no objections are raised, or if the Board decides not to consider such objections, it will proceed to ratify the winning candi
Term following failed ratification or early vacancy · The prior proposal stated that the person elected after a failed ratification would serve only the remainder of the original term. The revised proposal instead states that the Board-appointed chair serves until an election can be held and a winner ratified, while retaining application of the mechanism to resignation or failure to perform responsibilities.
Faits sourcés −
orum. 3.2.3.14. If it were not possible to ratify a candidate, the LACNIC Board will appoint a chair to fill the vacant position until the following Public Policy Forum. The next time an election and ratification process can be held, the person elected will only fill the position for the remainder of the original term. This same mechanism will apply, if necessary, in case either of the chairs resigns before the end of their term or for any reason fails to meet their responsibili
rum. 3.2.3.7. If it is not possible to ratify any of the candidates, the LACNIC Board will appoint a chair to fill the vacant position until the following Public Policy Forum. The person thus appointed will only fill the position until the next time an election can be held and a is winner ratified. This same mechanism will apply, if necessary, in case either of the chairs resigns before the end of their term or for any reason fails to meet their responsibilit
Delegation of Board election functions · The body to which the Board may delegate election-related functions is changed from a Fiscal Commission or equivalent to an Electoral Commission or equivalent.
Faits sourcés −
cess. 3.2.3.16. The Board of Directors may delegate its functions relate to the election process to a Fiscal Commission or its equival
PDP chair reelection eligibility · The reelection rule changed from allowing only one consecutive reelection followed by a waiting period of at least one year to allowing unlimited reelection.
Faits sourcés −
PDP Chairs may only be re-elected once but are eligible to run again after a period of at least one year.
Use of the Public Policy List during elections · The prohibited use of the list changed from the broader category of "electoral purposes" to "campaigning."
Faits sourcés −
. 3.2.3.4. With the exception of announcements by LACNIC, using the list for electoral purposes is forbidde
Première position explicite: Opposition → Dernière position explicite: Opposition · Changements de position: 0
Cohérence du point de vue: Cohérent
Dans ces 23 messages consacrés à six propositions, entre juin 2020 et avril 2021, le participant examine les nouvelles exigences selon des critères cohérents : problème démontré, autonomie de la communauté et mission du RIR en matière de ressources de numérotation. Son opposition à certaines procédures ou à une condition IPv6 pour les transferts IPv4 s'accompagne d'un soutien aux réformes ciblées et au déploiement d'IPv6. Aucun revirement inexpliqué n'apparaît dans cet ensemble ; ce constat ne porte ni sur toute son activité ni sur les versions finales de chaque proposition.
Évaluation: Cohérent · Concernant l'élection de la présidence du PDP, il reste opposé à une proposition plus complexe, tout en acceptant qu'un amendement limité exige une participation préalable à la liste. Cette exception précise la portée de son opposition sans la renverser.
Réserves: Il privilégie l'autonomie communautaire et demande une raison claire avant de remplacer la procédure existante. · Les éléments concernent ces échanges de juin 2020, pas son approbation ou son rejet de toutes les versions ultérieures.
Porque el mecanismo actual es mucho m?s basado en la comunidad. Es la propia comunidad que se autogestiona.
Alcanzar?a con una propuesta que solamente agregue este punto espec?fico.
Como dije antes. Bueno y simple, doblemente bueno.
Évaluation: Cohérent · Son opposition à une nouvelle politique d'utilisation acceptable de la liste repose sur l'idée que les outils existants permettent de traiter les incidents décrits. Il reste ouvert à des outils supplémentaires si une lacune non résolue est démontrée, sans nier l'existence des incidents.
Réserves: L'adéquation des recours existants est son appréciation, et non une mesure indépendante de leur efficacité. · Il conteste l'ajout d'une politique générale pour les problèmes cités dans les circonstances débattues.
Mi opini?n es que no se necesita una PUA, por lo cual ni siquiera debo comentar el punto 2.
Si en alg?n momento queda evidente que existen problemas que no se pueden resolver con las herramientas disponibles (por ej. el c?digo de conducta), tendr?a sentido desde mi punto de vista, buscar nuevas herramientas, pero no creo que sea el caso en este momento.
No se puede hacer una pol?tica general para resolver temas puntuales.
Évaluation: Cohérent · Son soutien à l'adoption des propositions comme documents de travail vise à recentrer les échanges et à traiter la répétition de propositions sans appui. Il soutient le diagnostic et l'orientation, tout en laissant le mécanisme ouvert ; il présente explicitement les effets sur la participation comme hypothétiques.
Réserves: Toute réforme doit préserver la liberté de proposer des idées et d'en débattre. · Ces messages ne prouvent pas une amélioration de la participation et ne valent pas approbation de chaque disposition.
Ser? esta u otra propuesta, eso ya lo veremos, pero el concepto es muy apropiado.
Como no lo conozco, lo ?nico que puedo hacer es especular.
La propuesta de Arturo es una opci?n. Si esa opci?n no es la mejor para algunos, hay que buscar otra, pero el problema hay que resolverlo.
Évaluation: Cohérent · Les deux premières réponses sur l'amélioration du PDP accueillent favorablement la combinaison d'approches et l'intégration de points de vue variés. Elles soutiennent une conception collective du processus sans trancher les détails du texte final.
Réserves: Combiner les idées n'équivaut pas à approuver toutes les dispositions de l'une ou l'autre proposition. · Ce constat repose uniquement sur ces deux premières contributions.
Tal vez deber?an trabajar en una combinaci?n de ambas propuestas.
Hagamos lo posible por incluir tantas visiones como sea posible.
Évaluation: Cohérent · Il soutient la diffusion d'IPv6 mais refuse à plusieurs reprises d'en faire une condition opérationnelle des transferts IPv4. Le désaccord porte sur le moyen, l'effet attendu et le champ légitime de la politique de ressources, non sur l'objectif IPv6 ni sur un rejet absolu des exigences opérationnelles.
Réserves: Il reconnaît que les politiques imposent des exigences et influencent les marchés, mais conteste l'équilibre retenu ici. · Il préfère la formation, la coordination et le travail avec les opérateurs, sans que ces messages prouvent leur efficacité comparative.
comparto el esp?ritu que fundamenta la propuesta pero NO la apoyo
No apoyo esta pol?tica porque no me parece el camino adecuado
La discusi?n se basa en donde colocar el punto de equilibrio (o el trade off) y cuales requerimientos apuntan al uso eficiente del recurso que se asigna y cuales implican otro tipo de obligaciones.
Évaluation: Cohérent · Son opposition à la non-concurrence entre propositions reste cohérente avec l'idée que les contributions à la liste sont librement utilisables par la communauté. Il les distingue des recherches publiées séparément, dont les auteurs peuvent conserver des droits de propriété intellectuelle ; cette distinction ne renverse pas sa position sur la propriété des propositions.
Réserves: La reconnaissance des contributions reste appropriée même lorsque leur réutilisation est libre. · La distinction concerne les contributions aux politiques et les recherches publiées séparément, pas tous les litiges possibles de propriété intellectuelle.
Estoy totalmente en contra de esta propuesta.
Creo que las contribuciones que se hacen en esta lista en relaci?n a pol?ticas de manejo de recursos de numeraci?n de Internet, deben ser p?blicas y de uso libre de la comunidad.
El autor puede publicar el art?culo en otro lado, aplicar las reglas de propiedad intelectual que le parezcan m?s conveniente y luego hacer una referencia a esa publicaci?n desde la propuesta de pol?tica.
Évaluation: Cohérent · Refuser une nouvelle politique d'utilisation acceptable tout en soutenant une réforme des débats relève d'une distinction conditionnelle : il juge les recours existants suffisants dans le premier cas et identifie un problème d'ordre du jour non résolu dans le second. Le critère commun est un besoin concret de changement, pas le rejet de toute procédure.
Réserves: L'existence et l'ampleur des problèmes sont ses appréciations dans ces échanges. · Son soutien à une solution pour l'ordre du jour admet d'autres options et ne démontre pas ses effets sur la participation.
Si en alg?n momento queda evidente que existen problemas que no se pueden resolver con las herramientas disponibles (por ej. el c?digo de conducta), tendr?a sentido desde mi punto de vista, buscar nuevas herramientas, pero no creo que sea el caso en este momento.
La propuesta de Arturo es una opci?n. Si esa opci?n no es la mejor para algunos, hay que buscar otra, pero el problema hay que resolverlo.
Évaluation: Cohérent · Encourager les auteurs à combiner leurs idées sur le PDP concorde avec son refus ultérieur d'un contrôle exclusif des contributions à la liste. Les deux positions favorisent une élaboration collective des politiques, tout en laissant place à l'attribution des contributions et aux droits sur les recherches publiées séparément.
Réserves: Cette comparaison ne présente pas toute propriété intellectuelle comme incompatible avec une participation ouverte. · Elle décrit les positions des échanges cités sans attribuer au participant une règle universelle.
Tal vez deber?an trabajar en una combinaci?n de ambas propuestas.
Hagamos lo posible por incluir tantas visiones como sea posible.
Creo que las contribuciones que se hacen en esta lista en relaci?n a pol?ticas de manejo de recursos de numeraci?n de Internet, deben ser p?blicas y de uso libre de la comunidad.
29 juin 2020 · Opposition
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2019-7
Me gusta mucho m?s el mecanismo actual de elecci?n de los moderadores que lo que se propone en esta propuesta … El mecanismo propuesto es mucho m?s complejo innecesariamente.
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2019-7
Estoy de acuerdo contigo en un punto que es el ?nico que me pareci? realmente interesante de la propuesta, que es el requisito de haber estado en la lista por cierto tiempo para poder ser elegible. … Pero para esto no hace falta algo tan complejo y largo como la propuesta actual. Alcanzar?a con una propuesta que solamente agregue este punto espec?fico. … Ese es justamente uno de los problemas que mencion? de esta propuesta, Es tan detallada, tan compleja y larga, que es dif?cil que se pueda lograr consenso sobre todos los puntos. … Que el requisito aplique tambi?n para ser elector, adem?s de elegible, podr?a aplicar tambi?n, pero en realidad volvemos al punto en que estar?amos tratando de resolver un problema que no existe. Ser?a partir de la premisa de que estos son cargos muy codiciados y de gran poder al punto que puedan justifiquen una movilizaci?n masiva de recursos y gente para lograr que alguien sea elegido, cuando en realidad son cargos voluntarios que ocupa gente que generosamente contribuye con su tiempo. … Me parece que estas cosas las controla la comunidad de forma natural sin necesidad de una pol?tica. Por eso es que dije antes que el sistema actual es m?s ?basado en la comunidad?, cuando el propuesto es mucho m?s institucional, dandole roles (ambiguos en algunos casos y complejos en otros) a organismos institucionales (El Directorio claramente) … Por otra parte, algunos de los problemas que surgen innecesariamente de la propuesta, y que seguramente se convertir?an en dolores de cabeza futuros, en caso de ser adoptada, es que hay muchas conceptos que son dif?ciles de definir. Entrar?amos en un espiral de agregar procesos, definiciones y aclaraciones totalmente in?til. … Que significa que haya ?suficientes evidencias de fraude? en la etapa anterior a la elecci?n? quien lo decide, como? en base a que criterios el Directorio asumir? la responsabilidad de eliminar candidatos? … No solo se le dar?a nuevos atributos al Directorio sino que al mismo tiempo se le pondr?a en el aprieto de tener que asumir responsabilidades complejas. … Lo de colocar el requisito de que las personas sean de distintos pa?ses, puede tambi?n ser un argumento defendible, pero nuevamente estamos asemejando estos cargos voluntarios con los cargos del directorio u otros ?rganos institucionales cuando son cargos de naturaleza totalmente diferente. … La clave me parece que no es colocar tantos requisitos y hacer tan complejo el proceso de la elecci?n sino que la calve es que la comunidad funcione bien y que por lo tanto haya un control natural sobre los poderes y formas de trabajo de los moderadores, lo que a mi juicio, funciona muy bien en la actualidad.
[LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2019-7
Yo sigo pensando que no es necesaria, que agrega complejidad, que el sistema actual es m?s basado en la comunidad, que esta propuesta generar? problemas en su implementaci?n y que intenta resolver problemas que no existen.
