Addenda − Resource revocation

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 joint co-chair notice reports board ratification of the returned-resources proposal. It does not establish Nicolas's personal position or a sequence of such positions.

条件: A reported board decision is distinguished from the messenger's individual vote.

2014/10/03

The proposal was ratified and has entered the implementation stage.

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 co-chair notice reports non-ratification of the IPv6-deployment reserve and the board's participation and implementation concerns. Those institutional reasons are not personal opposition by the sender.

条件: The technical and participation statements are historical reported reasons, not independent verification of current routing behavior or registry capabilities. · The different outcomes for two proposals in one notice do not establish inconsistent personal treatment.

2014/10/03

The proposal was not ratified by LACNIC?s board and it has returned to the Policy List.

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 jointly signed status summary places the ASN-requirements proposal under board analysis. Summarizing proposed changes is not authoring or endorsing them, and no personal vote is supplied.

条件: A mistaken heading in the English summary must not be used to infer a new personal position.

2015/01/26

Proposals on analysis by the board LAC-2014-2: "Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements".

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 January status report and May report of community approval describe successive procedural stages. They do not establish that Nicolas personally supported or changed his position on the PDP update.

条件: The reports are jointly signed by the moderators. · Community approval and subsequent procedural reporting are not the same as a personal vote.

2015/01/26

Proposals in discussion: LAC-2014-3: "Update to the Policy Development Process".

2015/05/20

The proposal was approved by LACNIC community.

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 May joint report that the proposal returned to discussion is followed in September by explicit personal support based on keeping transfer records accurate. The earlier report is not a personal opposing position, so this is not evidence of a reversal.

条件: The May language versions disagree on favorable votes and abstentions; the disputed figures are not treated as authoritative. · The detailed transfer provisions quoted in September are existing text being explained, not a new list of conditions authored by the sender. · Only the September contribution supplies an explicit personal vote.

2015/05/20

thus the proposal returns to the discussion list.

2015/09/22

Por todo ello, en este caso yo estoy a favor de esta propuesta

Inter-RIR Transfers

評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The joint moderator report describes broad community interest in inter-RIR transfers and continued discussion of this particular proposal. It supplies no individual vote from Nicolas.

条件: Community-level support must not be reassigned to each person signing a procedural report.

2015/05/20

while the majority of the community agrees that there should be a policy of Inter-RIR transfer, it shall continue the discussion.

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 author opposes the proposed connectivity-dispute mechanism because he doubts both the RIR's role and its ability to compel technical choices. One message establishes this scoped objection, not persistence or reversal over time.

条件: Acknowledging a good intention is not support for the proposal as written. · The mandate and enforcement assessment is the author's reasoning.

2016/01/08

No estoy a favor de esta pol?tica tal cual est? planteada.

2016/01/08

dificilmente Lacnic pueda "obligar" a alguien a adoptar ciertas medidas

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 author asks that internal delegation by noncommercial organizations be considered when assessing IPv6 utilization requirements. This single contribution identifies an operational case and suggests examination, without establishing a final vote or longitudinal consistency.

条件: The Uruguay university example is the author's account. · An expectation of less frequent IPv6 reassignment is a forecast, not a demonstrated outcome.

2016/08/29

Tal vez debemos tener en cuenta esta situaci?n y analizar el nivel porcentual de exigencia de argumentaci?n de uso de las direcciones adapt?ndonos a estos casos que antes no hab?amos considerado.

One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC

評価: 一貫 · The April questions about source regions, contracts and reciprocity develop into explicit support for inbound transfer registration. Throughout, the author distinguishes ethical discomfort with transfers from the practical need to record transactions that occur. Those two views are not contradictory.

条件: The proposed inter-RIR workflow and recollection of ARIN discussions are questions and attributed understandings, not verified legal or procedural conclusions. · Supporting accurate registration does not imply approval of every commercial transfer.

2017/04/17

mantener un registro confiable por parte del RIR

2017/04/19

deber?amos aclarar bien ese punto con ARIN

2017/04/20

a fin de mantener los registros fiables tenemos que atender dicha realidad.

2017/04/20

apoyo enf?ticamente esta pol?tica LAC-2017-2.

Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers

評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The author requests differences between the two IPv4-size proposals, then expresses tentative agreement in principle while reserving a choice until exact changes are explained. These messages do not establish a final vote or a reversal.

条件: A preference for merging proposals is a process suggestion, not a decision on their exact substantive wording.

2017/04/25

hagan alguna aclaraci?n ya que al menos a mi me parecen similares

2017/04/25

poder definirme por una de las propuestas o por ninguna.

Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs

評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The same comparative discussion asks for each proposal's exact changes and objective before choosing either or neither. Tentative agreement with the direction does not establish endorsement of this particular text.

条件: The two quoted proposal summaries are context for the question, not separately authored positions by Nicolas.

2017/04/25

por lo menos el t?tulo es pr?cticamente el mismo

2017/04/25

me gustar?a conocer a fondo las diferencias explicadas por los autores.

Addenda − Resource revocation

評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The author proposes staff technical evaluation of essential resources followed by board ratification, with exceptional board discretion. This is a specific alternative division of responsibilities, but there is no second substantive contribution for comparison.

条件: Calling the proposal interesting does not establish unconditional support. · The asserted limits of the board's technical role are the author's view.

2017/04/26

la evaluaci?n deber?a ser del staff de LACNIC el cual elevar?a una propuesta al directorio

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

評価: 一貫 · Across the June discussion the author defends time for normal community review, rejects a period below thirty days and points urgent cases toward the expedited process. A possible thirty-day compromise does not retract that position or amount to firm support for shortening the period.

条件: He acknowledges arbitrariness in the exact number of days. · Rare use of a review stage is not accepted by the author as proof that the stage is unnecessary. · His historical timing description is not a statement of today's PDP rules.

2017/06/13

no creo que dicho per?odo deba ser menor a 30 d?as.

2017/06/14

es una garant?a adicional a la comunidad

2017/06/14

para esos casos "urgentes" est? el proceso expeditivo.

2017/06/22

no veo positivo que se reduzca a menos de 30 d?as.

2017/06/23

Si se quiere llevar a 30 dias

Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)

評価: 一貫 · The author initially advocates a virtual global registry operated by the existing RIRs, defends its administrative purpose, and later proposes withdrawing the formal proposal while continuing wider discussion and seeking a clearer process. That is an explicit change in procedural strategy and urgency, while the possible value of a GIR remains under consideration.

条件: The June withdrawal proposal must not be hidden or treated as continued pursuit of the same formal draft. · The later acknowledgement that a GIR may not yet be necessary qualifies urgency without becoming opposition to examining the concept. · Reports of circulation to other bodies are not evidence of their acceptance. · ICP-2 interpretations, cost expectations, operator recollections and future off-Earth scenarios remain the author's historical arguments, not independently verified present facts.

2018/01/19

no puede ser expeditivo en este caso porque no tendr?a sentido ?apresurar? una pol?tica global de este tipo

2018/01/19

Nuevamente todo est? abierto a discusi?n.

2018/01/19

un registro virtual operado por los mismos 5 RIRs

2018/03/07

los registros y el tratamiento de los recursos reflejen la realidad.

2018/03/07

No son t?cnicas. Son administrativas, pol?ticas y econ?micas

2018/03/08

El feedback de la idea es, como mencionas, lo m?s importante

2018/06/28

Puede que hoy no sea a?n tan necesario disponer de un GIR

2018/06/28

lo mejor es bajarla como propuesta y eventualmente platear la discusi?n en las listas de los diferentes RIR

Minor revision to the PDP

評価: 一貫 · Support in principle develops into a repeated request for version-neutral wording about continuing discussion or abandoning a proposal. The author separately accepts restarting the discussion period. The shift from support to alternative-wording labels reflects specification of the same position, not withdrawal.

条件: The final message calls the timing issue secondary to his wording suggestion; it does not oppose resetting the period. · No adoption of the proposed wording is established.

2018/09/14

En principio estoy de acuerdo con la modificacion que se propone.

2018/09/14

De esa forma queda libre lo de las versiones.

2018/09/14

Y luego habr?a que agregar en todo caso lo del reset de los meses.

2018/09/14

estoy de acuerdo en que se reinicie

Inter-RIR Transfer Policy

評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The author supports a transfer policy for registry accuracy, but requests an IPv4-only, bidirectional proposal. This single contribution establishes those conditions; earlier transfer proposals provide cross-policy context rather than another vote on this same proposal.

条件: Deferring IPv6 transfer rules is not permanent opposition to them. · The description of other RIR practices is the author's historical assertion.

2018/11/01

propongo que la propuesta sea sobre IPv4 estrictamente y por supuesto que trate las transferencias en forma bidireccional

Registration and validation of abuse contact

評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The author accepts the idea of registering an abuse contact with changed wording, while preferring best-practice guidance to binding operational abuse-handling rules. Partial agreement and rejection of an enforcement role concern different provisions, not opposing votes on the same provision.

条件: This does not establish support for the entire proposal as written. · His mandate and capacity concerns are assessments, not legal determinations.

2018/03/07

En principio estar?a de acuerdo con el primer punto de tu propuesta

2018/03/07

un manual de BCPs m?s que en una pol?tica.

Simplification of the PDP

評価: 一貫 · A request for marked changes is followed by opposition to broad simplification and a defense of cumulative list-and-forum consensus. Interest in selected individual elements does not withdraw opposition to the package or to reducing the forum's role without a demonstrated need.

条件: The initial request for review material is not an earlier supporting vote. · The author's participation, historical-frequency and legitimacy claims are arguments, not verified statistics or proof of equal access.

2018/03/14

un texto con control de cambios

2018/03/14

por ahora creo que el proceso es el adecuado para nuestra regi?n.

2018/03/14

no veo una urgencia para nuestra regi?n, que amerite quitarle importancia al lugar que ocupa el foro en el proceso.

Clarifications of Sub-Assignments

評価: 一貫性を評価するには証拠が不十分です · The author tentatively prefers the option allowing a data centre to assign multiple addresses to customers. This one clarification does not establish a sequence of positions or endorsement of every sub-assignment clause.

条件: References to other participants' clarifications are context, not additional positions independently expressed by Nicolas.

2018/10/30

me inclino m?s por la opci?n 2 que menciona Jordi, que permite asignar direcciones a los clientes (y no solo una).

Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users

評価: 一貫 · The May request to clarify a scenario is followed in November by support for advancing the proposal because the author considers material objections addressed. Seeking clarification and later accepting the discussion's outcome are compatible; the earlier message did not oppose the proposal.

条件: The later statement describes his assessment of resolved objections, not a formal declaration of community consensus.

2018/05/22

creo que Jordi debe aclararlo nuevamente en todo caso.

2018/11/02

no veo en este momento, en lo personal, nada que impida avanzar con esta propuesta.

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. · One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC

評価: 一貫 · Personal support for registering intra-regional transfers and later support for inbound inter-RIR transfers share the same reason: the registry should reflect actual resource use. The earlier moderator report of a failed forum outcome is not personal opposition.

条件: Intra-regional and interregional mechanisms have different procedural requirements.

2015/09/22

los registros de LACNIC contin?en siendo vigentes y manteni?ndose actualizados.

2017/04/20

confianza y fiabilidad en los registros.

One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC · Inter-RIR Transfer Policy

評価: 一貫 · The move from supporting inbound-only transfers in 2017 to requesting bidirectional IPv4 transfers in 2018 is an acknowledged design change. The author explicitly connects it to objections encountered by the earlier proposal, while retaining registry accuracy as his objective.

条件: This is not an unchanged preference about directionality; it is an explained adaptation. · His account of why the earlier proposal was discarded remains attributed to him.

2017/04/20

apoyo enf?ticamente esta pol?tica LAC-2017-2.

2018/11/01

trate las transferencias en forma bidireccional ya que ese fue uno de los argumentos que se manejaron cuando se descart? la propuesta de transferencias unidireccionales anterior.

Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported · Registration and validation of abuse contact

評価: 一貫 · The connectivity-dispute objection and the abuse-handling alternative both distinguish registration responsibilities from compelling particular network operations. Accepting contact information while preferring guidance for operational behavior does not contradict the earlier boundary concern.

条件: The comparison describes the author's view of the RIR role, not an authoritative definition of that role.

2016/01/08

menos cuando se tratan de soluciones t?cnicas

2018/03/07

no creo que LACNIC deba tener el rol de polic?a de Internet regional.

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

評価: 一貫 · Opposition to shortening ordinary last call and opposition to broad PDP simplification share a concern for deliberative safeguards and an existing expedited exception. Neither contribution treats faster processing alone as sufficient justification.

条件: The comparison does not imply opposition to every procedural improvement.

2017/06/14

para esos casos "urgentes" est? el proceso expeditivo.

2018/03/14

apurar estos procesos o simplificarlos no siempre los vuelve m?s leg?timos

Simplification of the PDP · Minor revision to the PDP

評価: 一貫 · Rejecting a broad PDP overhaul is compatible with later supporting a narrower amendment using clearer, version-neutral wording. The later proposal preserves continued discussion and a reset period rather than establishing a general preference for removing deliberative stages.

条件: The author had expressly left room for considering useful individual changes in the broader discussion.

2018/03/14

algunas cosas de las que propones son muy interesantes

2018/09/14

De esa forma queda libre lo de las versiones.

Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers · Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs

評価: 一貫 · Across both IPv4-size proposals the author requests comparable exact changes and reserves a choice. Tentative agreement with the general direction is compatible with asking the authors to distinguish or combine their proposals.

条件: This comparison concerns his decision process; it does not establish a final substantive vote on either draft.

2017/04/25

Consulto por las dos propuestas

2017/04/25

poder definirme por una de las propuestas o por ninguna.

Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR) · Registration and validation of abuse contact

評価: 一貫 · Advocating a global administrative registration mechanism is compatible with rejecting an operational policing role for LACNIC. The GIR argument explicitly describes administrative, political and economic aims, while the abuse-policy objection concerns prescribing and supervising network conduct.

条件: Support for changing registry administration is not support for every expansion of enforcement authority. · The comparison does not validate the proposed GIR's feasibility or recognition requirements.

2018/03/07

No son t?cnicas. Son administrativas, pol?ticas y econ?micas

2018/03/07

un rol de fiscalizaci?n para el cual no est? ni mandatado ni tendr?a la capacidad de hacerlo