Carlos Plasencia

公開記録では、Carlos Plasencia はインターネット基盤に関わる意思決定、訴訟、ガバナンス、または運用に関係する人物として確認されています。

確認できる情報は役割: policy proposal author (LACNIC)を網羅しています。

最新観測 2026-09-20

役割: policy proposal author (LACNIC)

信頼度

公的役割: 現在の役職と所属は引き続き検証が必要です。
情報の種類: Carlos Plasencia の公的な役割、意思決定、または法的関与は、ネットワーク投資、市場参入、インフラ政策、責任範囲に影響し得ます。この人物記録では、引用された記録と現在の役職に関する確認を分けて示します。

役職

Role:policy proposal author (LACNIC)未評価履歴情報

出典に基づく事実

RIR ポリシーへの参加

1参加した RIR

18参加したポリシー

35ポリシーメッセージ総数

2014/06/05初回参加

2016/04/29最終参加

LAC-2013-3Adapting the allocation / assignment policy for IPv4 exhaustion.不明 · 0 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 明示的な立場は示されていません
LAC-2013-4Management of Returned Internet Resources不明 · 1 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
Management of Returned Internet Resources
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
条件: Reporting a community outcome is not treated as personal support.
2014/06/05
LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources
Management of Returned Internet Resources · Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The retained record reports parallel forum outcomes for both proposals but does not state the participant's own substantive position on either one, so no cross-policy consistency conclusion is supported.
条件: Consensus and last-call reporting are treated as community outcomes rather than as the participant's personal policy positions.
2014/06/05
LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources
2014/06/05
LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
LAC-2014-1Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment不明 · 1 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
条件: Reporting a community outcome is not treated as personal support.
2014/06/05
LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Management of Returned Internet Resources · Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The retained record reports parallel forum outcomes for both proposals but does not state the participant's own substantive position on either one, so no cross-policy consistency conclusion is supported.
条件: Consensus and last-call reporting are treated as community outcomes rather than as the participant's personal policy positions.
2014/06/05
LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources
2014/06/05
LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
LAC-2014-2Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements不明 · 3 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The retained messages report consensus, ratification, and implementation timing, but do not express the participant's own policy position.
Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The retained messages report consensus, ratification, and implementation timing, but do not express the participant's own policy position.
条件: Administrative implementation notices are not treated as votes or endorsements.
2015/02/26
The proposal was RATIFIED. However, it will be implemented as soon as the corresponding settings will be completed in LACNIC?s system.
LAC-2014-3Update to the Policy Development Process不明 · 2 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The supplied material lists the Policy Development Process update for presentation but provides no substantive participant viewpoint on it.
Update to the Policy Development Process
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The supplied material lists the Policy Development Process update for presentation but provides no substantive participant viewpoint on it.
条件: A separate retained observation assigned to this policy discusses another proposal's status and does not supply a position on this policy.
2015/05/10
LAC-2014-3: Update to the Policy Development Process
LAC-2015-1Trigger 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.不明 · 3 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The participant asks whether the community wishes to continue or abandon the proposal, but does not state a personal support or opposition position.
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.
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The participant asks whether the community wishes to continue or abandon the proposal, but does not state a personal support or opposition position.
条件: A request for community direction is procedural and is not treated as the sender's vote.
2015/07/27
Would you like to continue discussing this proposal or do you believe it should be abandoned?
LAC-2015-2Inter-RIR Transfers不明 · 3 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The retained messages list, summarize, and report the forum outcome for Inter-RIR Transfers, but do not identify the participant's own position.
Inter-RIR Transfers
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The retained messages list, summarize, and report the forum outcome for Inter-RIR Transfers, but do not identify the participant's own position.
条件: Reported vote totals and status are community outcomes, not personal votes.
2015/10/08
2015-2: Inter-RIR transfers. 17 in favor, 87 against, 33 abstentions. ABANDONED
LAC-2015-3IPv4 exhaustion policy with a scheduled termination date and the scheduled return of large users' blocks.不明 · 3 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The retained messages report the proposal's discussion and eventual abandonment, but do not state the participant's own substantive viewpoint.
IPv4 exhaustion policy with a scheduled termination date and the scheduled return of large users' blocks.
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The retained messages report the proposal's discussion and eventual abandonment, but do not state the participant's own substantive viewpoint.
条件: A status change to abandoned is not evidence of the sender's personal opposition.
2016/04/29
The status of proposals ?2015-3 IPv4 exhaustion policy with a scheduled termination date and the scheduled return of large users' blocks? has changed from ?UNDER DISCUSSION? to ?ABANDONED?.
LAC-2015-4Resource Recovery Timeline不明 · 2 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The retained messages summarize the Resource Recovery Timeline proposal and report its forum result, but do not state the participant's own policy position.
Resource Recovery Timeline
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The retained messages summarize the Resource Recovery Timeline proposal and report its forum result, but do not state the participant's own policy position.
条件: Reported vote totals and last-call status are community outcomes, not personal votes.
2015/10/08
2015-4: Resource Recovery Timeline. 83 in favor, 3 against, 14 abstentions. APPROVED ? The proposal is now in the last call for comments period.
LAC-2015-5Increase the minimum period of time required before a block can be transferred under section 2.3.2.18不明 · 1 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The retained message summarizes the proposed three-year transfer waiting period but does not express the participant's own support or opposition.
Increase the minimum period of time required before a block can be transferred under section 2.3.2.18
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The retained message summarizes the proposed three-year transfer waiting period but does not express the participant's own support or opposition.
条件: A neutral policy summary is not treated as a personal viewpoint.
2015/09/14
2015-5: Increase the minimum period of time required before a block can be transferred under section 2.3.2.18 Summary: This proposal seeks to modify section 2.3.2.18, increasing the period of time required before an assigned block can be transfered to 3 years, from the one-year period currently in force.
LAC-2015-6Modify the scope of IPv4 Exhaustion Phase 2 for the region不明 · 2 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The retained messages describe the expedited process and invite comments for or against the proposal, without stating the participant's own position.
Modify the scope of IPv4 Exhaustion Phase 2 for the region
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The retained messages describe the expedited process and invite comments for or against the proposal, without stating the participant's own position.
条件: Soliciting views on approval is not treated as an endorsement or objection.
2015/10/27
We would like to invite you all to participate by expressing your views and comments in favor or against approval of the proposal.
LAC-2016-1Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported不明 · 3 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The retained messages announce and describe successive versions of the IPv4-IPv6 connectivity proposal but do not state the participant's own substantive view.
Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The retained messages announce and describe successive versions of the IPv4-IPv6 connectivity proposal but do not state the participant's own substantive view.
条件: Quoting proposal text as a forum chair is treated as procedural transmission.
2016/01/08
The community's comments and opinions are essential to the proper functioning of the policy development process.- Do you support this policy or are you against it?
LAC-2016-2IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.不明 · 1 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The only retained observation lists the critical-infrastructure IPv4 reserve proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The only retained observation lists the critical-infrastructure IPv4 reserve proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
条件: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.
2016/04/18
LAC-2016-2: IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.
LAC-2016-3Remove the reference to a provider’s "multihomed or non-multihomed status".不明 · 1 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The only retained observation lists the multihoming-status proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
Remove the reference to a provider’s "multihomed or non-multihomed status".
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The only retained observation lists the multihoming-status proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
条件: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.
2016/04/18
LAC-2016-3: Remove the reference to a provider?s "multihomed or non-multihomed status".
LAC-2016-4Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users不明 · 3 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The retained messages announce and describe versions of the direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The retained messages announce and describe versions of the direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
条件: Publishing version changes as a forum chair is not treated as a personal policy position.
2016/03/28
Proposal LAC-2016-4 has been updated to version 2.
LAC-2016-5Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations不明 · 3 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The retained messages announce and describe versions of the initial IPv6 allocation-size proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The retained messages announce and describe versions of the initial IPv6 allocation-size proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
条件: Publishing version changes as a forum chair is not treated as a personal policy position.
2016/03/30
Proposal LAC-2016-5 has been updated to version 2.
LAC-2016-6Modify the initial assignment size and the requirements for subsequent direct IPv6 assignments to end sites不明 · 2 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The retained messages announce and list the subsequent direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Modify the initial assignment size and the requirements for subsequent direct IPv6 assignments to end sites
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The retained messages announce and list the subsequent direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
条件: Receipt and agenda notices are procedural evidence only.
2016/03/31
A new Policy Proposal has been received and assigned the following ID:LAC-2016-6.
LAC-2016-7Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations不明 · 1 ディスカッションのメッセージ
見解の一貫性: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です
The only retained observation associated with this policy is an agenda listing of an IPv6 allocation-size proposal; it does not establish the participant's own viewpoint.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The only retained observation associated with this policy is an agenda listing of an IPv6 allocation-size proposal; it does not establish the participant's own viewpoint.
条件: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.
2016/04/18
LAC-2016-5: Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations.

Carlos Plasencia

信頼度

関連情報

役職

RIR ポリシーへの参加

RIR ポリシーへの参加