인물 프로필

인물

Nicolas Antoniello

Nicolas Antoniello은(는) 인용된 공개 기록에서 인터넷 인프라와 관련된 의사결정, 소송, 거버넌스 또는 운영에 관여한 인물로 확인되며, 현재 직책과 소속은 검증 대상입니다.

최신 2026-09-25

신뢰도

정보 유형: Nicolas Antoniello의 문서로 확인된 공적 역할, 결정 또는 법적 연루는 네트워크 투자, 시장 접근, 인프라 정책, 책임 경계에 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 이 자료집은 인용된 기록과 현직 역할 검증을 구분해 담습니다.

역할

역할:author아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

역할:Public Policy Forum co-chair (LACNIC)아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

출처 정보

RIR 정책 참여

2참여한 RIR

27참여한 정책

55총 정책 메시지 수

2010. 8. 10.최초 참여

2018. 11. 2.마지막 참여

prop-097Global policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
LAC-2011-05Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
LAC-2012-8Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The author asks whether the recipient's RIR takes responsibility for transferred addresses and charges membership under its own policies. This is a request to confirm the mechanism, not an endorsement or rejection of inter-RIR transfers. One question cannot establish a longitudinal position.
Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The author asks whether the recipient's RIR takes responsibility for transferred addresses and charges membership under its own policies. This is a request to confirm the mechanism, not an endorsement or rejection of inter-RIR transfers. One question cannot establish a longitudinal position.
2013. 4. 30.
si interpreto bien tu respuesta
2013. 4. 30.
Correcto?
LAC-2013-3Adapting the allocation / assignment policy for IPv4 exhaustion.알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The co-chairs announce a 20-day extension for comments and subsequently open a 14-day call for consensus on the IPv4-exhaustion proposal. These are compatible procedural notices, inviting views both for and against. They establish no personal policy vote from which to assess a reversal.
Adapting the allocation / assignment policy for IPv4 exhaustion.
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The co-chairs announce a 20-day extension for comments and subsequently open a 14-day call for consensus on the IPv4-exhaustion proposal. These are compatible procedural notices, inviting views both for and against. They establish no personal policy vote from which to assess a reversal.
2014. 1. 27.
el per?odo de comentarios por 20 d?as
2014. 2. 14.
durante los pr?ximos 14 d?as
LAC-2013-4Management of Returned Internet Resources알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
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.
Management of Returned Internet Resources
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.
조건: A reported board decision is distinguished from the messenger's individual vote.
2014. 10. 3.
The proposal was ratified and has entered the implementation stage.
LAC-2014-1Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The co-chair first circulates the IPv6-deployment reserve proposal for comment and later reports its non-ratification and the board's concerns. Circulating the authors' proposal is not personal endorsement, and reporting the institutional outcome is not personal opposition. These notices do not establish a reversal by the sender.
Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The co-chair first circulates the IPv6-deployment reserve proposal for comment and later reports its non-ratification and the board's concerns. Circulating the authors' proposal is not personal endorsement, and reporting the institutional outcome is not personal opposition. These notices do not establish a reversal by the sender.
조건: 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. 3.
The proposal was not ratified by LACNIC?s board and it has returned to the Policy List.
2014. 1. 27.
Dado que sus comentarios son importantes, solicitamos que exprese sus
LAC-2014-2Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements알 수 없음 · 3 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The jointly signed notices invite final comments, announce the end of last call, and report board consideration of the ASN-requirements proposal. They describe successive procedural stages. Neither the reported approval nor the summary of proposed changes supplies a personal vote by the sender.
Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The jointly signed notices invite final comments, announce the end of last call, and report board consideration of the ASN-requirements proposal. They describe successive procedural stages. Neither the reported approval nor the summary of proposed changes supplies a personal vote by the sender.
조건: A mistaken heading in the English summary must not be used to infer a new personal position.
2015. 1. 26.
Proposals on analysis by the board LAC-2014-2: "Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements".
2014. 12. 9.
Le recordamos que durante este per?odo pueden expresar comentarios a favor
2014. 12. 18.
En la pr?xima reuni?n de directorio ser? evaluada su ratificaci?n.
LAC-2014-3Update to the Policy Development Process알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
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.
Update to the Policy Development Process
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.
조건: The reports are jointly signed by the moderators. · Community approval and subsequent procedural reporting are not the same as a personal vote.
2015. 1. 26.
Proposals in discussion: LAC-2014-3: "Update to the Policy Development Process".
2015. 5. 20.
The proposal was approved by LACNIC community.
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.지지 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
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.
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.
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.
조건: 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. 5. 20.
thus the proposal returns to the discussion list.
2015. 9. 22.
Por todo ello, en este caso yo estoy a favor de 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
평가: 일관성 · 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.
Intra-regional and interregional mechanisms have different procedural requirements.
LAC-2015-2Inter-RIR Transfers알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
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.
Inter-RIR Transfers
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.
조건: Community-level support must not be reassigned to each person signing a procedural report.
2015. 5. 20.
while the majority of the community agrees that there should be a policy of Inter-RIR transfer, it shall continue the discussion.
LAC-2016-1Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported반대 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
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.
Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.
조건: Acknowledging a good intention is not support for the proposal as written. · The mandate and enforcement assessment is the author's reasoning.
2016. 1. 8.
No estoy a favor de esta pol?tica tal cual est? planteada.
2016. 1. 8.
dificilmente Lacnic pueda "obligar" a alguien a adoptar ciertas medidas
Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported · Registration and validation of abuse contact
평가: 일관성 · 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.
조건: The comparison describes the author's view of the RIR role, not an authoritative definition of that role.
2016. 1. 8.
menos cuando se tratan de soluciones t?cnicas
2018. 3. 7.
LAC-2016-5Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
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.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.
조건: The Uruguay university example is the author's account. · An expectation of less frequent IPv6 reassignment is a forecast, not a demonstrated outcome.
2016. 8. 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.
LAC-2017-2One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC지지 · 4 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
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.
One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC
평가: 일관성 · 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.
조건: 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. 4. 17.
mantener un registro confiable por parte del RIR
2017. 4. 19.
deber?amos aclarar bien ese punto con ARIN
2017. 4. 20.
a fin de mantener los registros fiables tenemos que atender dicha realidad.
2017. 4. 20.
apoyo enf?ticamente esta pol?tica LAC-2017-2.
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
평가: 일관성 · 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.
LAC-2017-3Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
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.
Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.
조건: A preference for merging proposals is a process suggestion, not a decision on their exact substantive wording.
2017. 4. 25.
hagan alguna aclaraci?n ya que al menos a mi me parecen similares
2017. 4. 25.
poder definirme por una de las propuestas o por ninguna.
Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers · Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs
평가: 일관성 · 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.
조건: This comparison concerns his decision process; it does not establish a final substantive vote on either draft.
2017. 4. 25.
Consulto por las dos propuestas
2017. 4. 25.
poder definirme por una de las propuestas o por ninguna.
LAC-2017-4Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
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.
Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.
조건: The two quoted proposal summaries are context for the question, not separately authored positions by Nicolas.
2017. 4. 25.
por lo menos el t?tulo es pr?cticamente el mismo
2017. 4. 25.
me gustar?a conocer a fondo las diferencias explicadas por los autores.
Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers · Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs
평가: 일관성 · 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.
조건: This comparison concerns his decision process; it does not establish a final substantive vote on either draft.
2017. 4. 25.
Consulto por las dos propuestas
2017. 4. 25.
poder definirme por una de las propuestas o por ninguna.
LAC-2017-5Addenda − Resource revocation대안 제안 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
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.
Addenda − Resource revocation
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.
조건: Calling the proposal interesting does not establish unconditional support. · The asserted limits of the board's technical role are the author's view.
2017. 4. 26.
la evaluaci?n deber?a ser del staff de LACNIC el cual elevar?a una propuesta al directorio
LAC-2017-7Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.반대 · 5 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
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.
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.
평가: 일관성 · 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.
조건: 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. 6. 13.
no creo que dicho per?odo deba ser menor a 30 d?as.
2017. 6. 14.
es una garant?a adicional a la comunidad
2017. 6. 14.
para esos casos "urgentes" est? el proceso expeditivo.
2017. 6. 22.
no veo positivo que se reduzca a menos de 30 d?as.
2017. 6. 23.
Si se quiere llevar a 30 dias
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. · Simplification of the PDP
평가: 일관성 · 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.
LAC-2018-1Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)대안 제안 · 9 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
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.
Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)
평가: 일관성 · 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.
조건: 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. 1. 19.
no puede ser expeditivo en este caso porque no tendr?a sentido ?apresurar? una pol?tica global de este tipo
2018. 1. 19.
Nuevamente todo est? abierto a discusi?n.
2018. 1. 19.
un registro virtual operado por los mismos 5 RIRs
2018. 3. 7.
los registros y el tratamiento de los recursos reflejen la realidad.
2018. 3. 7.
No son t?cnicas. Son administrativas, pol?ticas y econ?micas
2018. 3. 8.
El feedback de la idea es, como mencionas, lo m?s importante
LAC-2018-12Minor revision to the PDP대안 제안 · 4 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
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.
Minor revision to the PDP
평가: 일관성 · 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.
조건: 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. 9. 14.
En principio estoy de acuerdo con la modificacion que se propone.
2018. 9. 14.
De esa forma queda libre lo de las versiones.
2018. 9. 14.
Y luego habr?a que agregar en todo caso lo del reset de los meses.
2018. 9. 14.
estoy de acuerdo en que se reinicie
Simplification of the PDP · Minor revision to the PDP
평가: 일관성 · 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.
조건: The author had expressly left room for considering useful individual changes in the broader discussion.
LAC-2018-14Inter-RIR Transfer Policy수정을 조건으로 지지 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
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.
Inter-RIR Transfer Policy
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.
조건: Deferring IPv6 transfer rules is not permanent opposition to them. · The description of other RIR practices is the author's historical assertion.
2018. 11. 1.
propongo que la propuesta sea sobre IPv4 estrictamente y por supuesto que trate las transferencias en forma bidireccional
One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC · Inter-RIR Transfer Policy
평가: 일관성 · 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.
조건: 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. 4. 20.
apoyo enf?ticamente esta pol?tica LAC-2017-2.
2018. 11. 1.
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.
LAC-2018-5Registration and validation of abuse contact대안 제안 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
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.
Registration and validation of abuse contact
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.
조건: This does not establish support for the entire proposal as written. · His mandate and capacity concerns are assessments, not legal determinations.
2018. 3. 7.
En principio estar?a de acuerdo con el primer punto de tu propuesta
2018. 3. 7.
un manual de BCPs m?s que en una pol?tica.
Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported · Registration and validation of abuse contact
평가: 일관성 · 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.
조건: The comparison describes the author's view of the RIR role, not an authoritative definition of that role.
2016. 1. 8.
menos cuando se tratan de soluciones t?cnicas
LAC-2018-6Simplification of the PDP반대 · 3 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
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.
Simplification of the PDP
평가: 일관성 · 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.
조건: 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. 3. 14.
un texto con control de cambios
2018. 3. 14.
por ahora creo que el proceso es el adecuado para nuestra regi?n.
2018. 3. 14.
no veo una urgencia para nuestra regi?n, que amerite quitarle importancia al lugar que ocupa el foro en el proceso.
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. · Simplification of the PDP
평가: 일관성 · 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.
조건: The comparison does not imply opposition to every procedural improvement.
2017. 6. 14.
LAC-2018-7Clarifications of Sub-Assignments수정을 조건으로 지지 · 3 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
The author first explains how a data centre's addressing and peering arrangements work, then asks how it could operate without sub-assignments, and later tentatively favors allowing multiple addresses for customers. The later preference answers the operational concern rather than reversing an earlier vote. It supports a specific option, not every clause of the proposal.
Clarifications of Sub-Assignments
평가: 일관성 · The author first explains how a data centre's addressing and peering arrangements work, then asks how it could operate without sub-assignments, and later tentatively favors allowing multiple addresses for customers. The later preference answers the operational concern rather than reversing an earlier vote. It supports a specific option, not every clause of the proposal.
2018. 10. 29.
dependiendo del modelo de peering
2018. 10. 29.
Es que no me queda claro como funciona el DC
2018. 10. 30.
Entonces, creo que me inclino m?s por la opci?n 2
LAC-2018-8Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users지지 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
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.
Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users
평가: 일관성 · 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.
조건: The later statement describes his assessment of resolved objections, not a formal declaration of community consensus.
2018. 5. 22.
creo que Jordi debe aclararlo nuevamente en todo caso.
2018. 11. 2.
no veo en este momento, en lo personal, nada que impida avanzar con esta propuesta.
LAC-2019-8Modification of the Time Required for a Proposal to be Presented at the Public Policy Forum알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
LAC-2021-1Modify section “2.3.2.19 and 4.3 Inclusion of origin ASN in WHOIS responses when available”알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
LAC-2022-4PDP Chair Elections알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음

RIR 정책 참여

2참여한 RIR

27참여한 정책

55총 정책 메시지 수

2010. 8. 10.최초 참여

2018. 11. 2.마지막 참여

prop-097Global policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음

LAC-2011-05Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음

LAC-2012-8Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

The author asks whether the recipient's RIR takes responsibility for transferred addresses and charges membership under its own policies. This is a request to confirm the mechanism, not an endorsement or rejection of inter-RIR transfers. One question cannot establish a longitudinal position.

Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The author asks whether the recipient's RIR takes responsibility for transferred addresses and charges membership under its own policies. This is a request to confirm the mechanism, not an endorsement or rejection of inter-RIR transfers. One question cannot establish a longitudinal position.

2013. 4. 30.
si interpreto bien tu respuesta

2013. 4. 30.
Correcto?

LAC-2013-3Adapting the allocation / assignment policy for IPv4 exhaustion.알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

The co-chairs announce a 20-day extension for comments and subsequently open a 14-day call for consensus on the IPv4-exhaustion proposal. These are compatible procedural notices, inviting views both for and against. They establish no personal policy vote from which to assess a reversal.

Adapting the allocation / assignment policy for IPv4 exhaustion.

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The co-chairs announce a 20-day extension for comments and subsequently open a 14-day call for consensus on the IPv4-exhaustion proposal. These are compatible procedural notices, inviting views both for and against. They establish no personal policy vote from which to assess a reversal.

2014. 1. 27.
el per?odo de comentarios por 20 d?as

2014. 2. 14.
durante los pr?ximos 14 d?as

LAC-2013-4Management of Returned Internet Resources알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

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.

Management of Returned Internet Resources

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.

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

2014. 10. 3.
The proposal was ratified and has entered the implementation stage.

LAC-2014-1Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

The co-chair first circulates the IPv6-deployment reserve proposal for comment and later reports its non-ratification and the board's concerns. Circulating the authors' proposal is not personal endorsement, and reporting the institutional outcome is not personal opposition. These notices do not establish a reversal by the sender.

Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The co-chair first circulates the IPv6-deployment reserve proposal for comment and later reports its non-ratification and the board's concerns. Circulating the authors' proposal is not personal endorsement, and reporting the institutional outcome is not personal opposition. These notices do not establish a reversal by the sender.

조건: 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. 3.
The proposal was not ratified by LACNIC?s board and it has returned to the Policy List.

2014. 1. 27.
Dado que sus comentarios son importantes, solicitamos que exprese sus

LAC-2014-2Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements알 수 없음 · 3 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

The jointly signed notices invite final comments, announce the end of last call, and report board consideration of the ASN-requirements proposal. They describe successive procedural stages. Neither the reported approval nor the summary of proposed changes supplies a personal vote by the sender.

Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The jointly signed notices invite final comments, announce the end of last call, and report board consideration of the ASN-requirements proposal. They describe successive procedural stages. Neither the reported approval nor the summary of proposed changes supplies a personal vote by the sender.

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

2015. 1. 26.
Proposals on analysis by the board LAC-2014-2: "Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements".

2014. 12. 9.
Le recordamos que durante este per?odo pueden expresar comentarios a favor

2014. 12. 18.
En la pr?xima reuni?n de directorio ser? evaluada su ratificaci?n.

LAC-2014-3Update to the Policy Development Process알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

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.

Update to the Policy Development Process

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.

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

2015. 1. 26.
Proposals in discussion: LAC-2014-3: "Update to the Policy Development Process".

2015. 5. 20.
The proposal was approved by LACNIC community.

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.지지 · 2 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

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.

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.

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.

조건: 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. 5. 20.
thus the proposal returns to the discussion list.

2015. 9. 22.
Por todo ello, en este caso yo estoy a favor de 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

평가: 일관성 · 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.

Intra-regional and interregional mechanisms have different procedural requirements.

LAC-2015-2Inter-RIR Transfers알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

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.

Inter-RIR Transfers

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.

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

2015. 5. 20.
while the majority of the community agrees that there should be a policy of Inter-RIR transfer, it shall continue the discussion.

LAC-2016-1Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported반대 · 1 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

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.

Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.

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

2016. 1. 8.
No estoy a favor de esta pol?tica tal cual est? planteada.

2016. 1. 8.
dificilmente Lacnic pueda "obligar" a alguien a adoptar ciertas medidas

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

평가: 일관성 · 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.

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

2016. 1. 8.
menos cuando se tratan de soluciones t?cnicas

2018. 3. 7.

LAC-2016-5Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

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.

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.

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

2016. 8. 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.

LAC-2017-2One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC지지 · 4 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성

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.

One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC

평가: 일관성 · 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.

조건: 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. 4. 17.
mantener un registro confiable por parte del RIR

2017. 4. 19.
deber?amos aclarar bien ese punto con ARIN

2017. 4. 20.
a fin de mantener los registros fiables tenemos que atender dicha realidad.

2017. 4. 20.
apoyo enf?ticamente esta pol?tica LAC-2017-2.

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

LAC-2017-3Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

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.

Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.

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

2017. 4. 25.
hagan alguna aclaraci?n ya que al menos a mi me parecen similares

2017. 4. 25.
poder definirme por una de las propuestas o por ninguna.

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

평가: 일관성 · 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.

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

2017. 4. 25.
Consulto por las dos propuestas

2017. 4. 25.
poder definirme por una de las propuestas o por ninguna.

LAC-2017-4Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

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.

Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.

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

2017. 4. 25.
por lo menos el t?tulo es pr?cticamente el mismo

2017. 4. 25.
me gustar?a conocer a fondo las diferencias explicadas por los autores.

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

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

2017. 4. 25.
Consulto por las dos propuestas

2017. 4. 25.
poder definirme por una de las propuestas o por ninguna.

LAC-2017-5Addenda − Resource revocation대안 제안 · 1 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

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.

Addenda − Resource revocation

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.

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

2017. 4. 26.
la evaluaci?n deber?a ser del staff de LACNIC el cual elevar?a una propuesta al directorio

LAC-2017-7Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.반대 · 5 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성

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.

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

평가: 일관성 · 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.

조건: 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. 6. 13.
no creo que dicho per?odo deba ser menor a 30 d?as.

2017. 6. 14.
es una garant?a adicional a la comunidad

2017. 6. 14.
para esos casos "urgentes" est? el proceso expeditivo.

2017. 6. 22.
no veo positivo que se reduzca a menos de 30 d?as.

2017. 6. 23.
Si se quiere llevar a 30 dias

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

평가: 일관성 · 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.

LAC-2018-1Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)대안 제안 · 9 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성

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.

Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)

평가: 일관성 · 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.

조건: 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. 1. 19.
no puede ser expeditivo en este caso porque no tendr?a sentido ?apresurar? una pol?tica global de este tipo

2018. 1. 19.
Nuevamente todo est? abierto a discusi?n.

2018. 1. 19.
un registro virtual operado por los mismos 5 RIRs

2018. 3. 7.
los registros y el tratamiento de los recursos reflejen la realidad.

2018. 3. 7.
No son t?cnicas. Son administrativas, pol?ticas y econ?micas

2018. 3. 8.
El feedback de la idea es, como mencionas, lo m?s importante

LAC-2018-12Minor revision to the PDP대안 제안 · 4 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성

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.

Minor revision to the PDP

평가: 일관성 · 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.

조건: 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. 9. 14.
En principio estoy de acuerdo con la modificacion que se propone.

2018. 9. 14.
De esa forma queda libre lo de las versiones.

2018. 9. 14.
Y luego habr?a que agregar en todo caso lo del reset de los meses.

2018. 9. 14.
estoy de acuerdo en que se reinicie

Simplification of the PDP · Minor revision to the PDP

평가: 일관성 · 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.

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

LAC-2018-14Inter-RIR Transfer Policy수정을 조건으로 지지 · 1 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

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.

Inter-RIR Transfer Policy

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.

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

2018. 11. 1.
propongo que la propuesta sea sobre IPv4 estrictamente y por supuesto que trate las transferencias en forma bidireccional

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

평가: 일관성 · 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.

조건: 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. 4. 20.
apoyo enf?ticamente esta pol?tica LAC-2017-2.

2018. 11. 1.
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.

LAC-2018-5Registration and validation of abuse contact대안 제안 · 1 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다

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.

Registration and validation of abuse contact

평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · 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.

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

2018. 3. 7.
En principio estar?a de acuerdo con el primer punto de tu propuesta

2018. 3. 7.
un manual de BCPs m?s que en una pol?tica.

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

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

2016. 1. 8.
menos cuando se tratan de soluciones t?cnicas

LAC-2018-6Simplification of the PDP반대 · 3 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성

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.

Simplification of the PDP

평가: 일관성 · 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.

조건: 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. 3. 14.
un texto con control de cambios

2018. 3. 14.
por ahora creo que el proceso es el adecuado para nuestra regi?n.

2018. 3. 14.
no veo una urgencia para nuestra regi?n, que amerite quitarle importancia al lugar que ocupa el foro en el proceso.

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

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

2017. 6. 14.

LAC-2018-7Clarifications of Sub-Assignments수정을 조건으로 지지 · 3 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성

The author first explains how a data centre's addressing and peering arrangements work, then asks how it could operate without sub-assignments, and later tentatively favors allowing multiple addresses for customers. The later preference answers the operational concern rather than reversing an earlier vote. It supports a specific option, not every clause of the proposal.

Clarifications of Sub-Assignments

평가: 일관성 · The author first explains how a data centre's addressing and peering arrangements work, then asks how it could operate without sub-assignments, and later tentatively favors allowing multiple addresses for customers. The later preference answers the operational concern rather than reversing an earlier vote. It supports a specific option, not every clause of the proposal.

2018. 10. 29.
dependiendo del modelo de peering

2018. 10. 29.
Es que no me queda claro como funciona el DC

2018. 10. 30.
Entonces, creo que me inclino m?s por la opci?n 2

LAC-2018-8Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users지지 · 2 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 일관성

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.

Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users

평가: 일관성 · 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.

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

2018. 5. 22.
creo que Jordi debe aclararlo nuevamente en todo caso.

2018. 11. 2.
no veo en este momento, en lo personal, nada que impida avanzar con esta propuesta.

LAC-2019-8Modification of the Time Required for a Proposal to be Presented at the Public Policy Forum알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음

LAC-2021-1Modify section “2.3.2.19 and 4.3 Inclusion of origin ASN in WHOIS responses when available”알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음

LAC-2022-4PDP Chair Elections알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지

관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음

Nicolas Antoniello

신뢰도

관련 정보

역할

RIR 정책 참여

RIR 정책 참여