인물 프로필
인물Arturo Servin은(는) 인용된 공개 기록에서 인터넷 인프라와 관련된 의사결정, 소송, 거버넌스 또는 운영에 관여한 인물로 확인되며, 현재 직책과 소속은 검증 대상입니다.
확인 가능한 근거는 역할: author of LAC-2021-6, Modify the PDP to improve the quality of proposals and participation in the policy development process (Google)를 다룹니다.
Authors Lia Solis - Version [1] Arturo Servin - Version [1]
public people profile
Name: Arturo Servin Email: Organization: Google
public people profile
마지막 업데이트: 2026-10-11
출처 정보
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The June contribution identifies an ASN stock and replenishment problem. The October contribution accepts clearer requirements while considering the earlier rules reasonably flexible. They contain no express reversal, but the first is not a complete position on the proposed wording.
Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The June contribution identifies an ASN stock and replenishment problem. The October contribution accepts clearer requirements while considering the earlier rules reasonably flexible. They contain no express reversal, but the first is not a complete position on the proposed wording.
조건: The stock and IANA replenishment description is the author's June 2014 account, not a verified current inventory. · Accepting clearer wording does not imply that the earlier distribution rules were considered wholly inadequate.
Creo que el problema no son los ASN de 16 bits, si no los de 32 bits
de acuerdo que la redacci?n actual la hace m?s entendible sin cambiarla demasiado.
Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements · Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users
평가: 일관성 · Accepting clearer ASN requirements and supporting removal of unimportant end-user requirements both distinguish useful simplification from an unsupported claim that all existing rules are inadequate.
조건: This comparison concerns the stated reasons in these contributions, not every provision of either policy.
de acuerdo que la redacci?n actual la hace m?s entendible sin cambiarla demasiado.
los requisitos se eliminan porque no son realmente importantes.
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The author agrees with the proposed PDP text while remaining open to separating the appeals provision. That qualified support is explicit, but this single contribution cannot establish a longitudinal consistency judgment.
Update to the Policy Development Process
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The author agrees with the proposed PDP text while remaining open to separating the appeals provision. That qualified support is explicit, but this single contribution cannot establish a longitudinal consistency judgment.
조건: Openness to a separate appeals proposal is not rejection of the overall PDP update.
acuerdo con el texto actual pero tampoco estoy negado a las sugerencias como separarla en dos pol?ticas y ver la de apelaciones en una diferente.
Update to the Policy Development Process · Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.
평가: 일관성 · Supporting a PDP update while remaining open to splitting appeals is compatible with opposing a later specific shortening of last call without evidence of need. General support for process reform is not unconditional support for every subsequent amendment.
조건: The proposals address different process details at different times.
acuerdo con el texto actual pero tampoco estoy negado a las sugerencias
no veo necesidad de reducir el plazo.
관점 일관성: 일관성
The January and March objections both concern an ambiguous or ineffective implementation mechanism. The later question about how LACNIC would recommend IPv6 makes the earlier practical objection more specific; it does not reject IPv6 deployment itself.
Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported
평가: 일관성 · The January and March objections both concern an ambiguous or ineffective implementation mechanism. The later question about how LACNIC would recommend IPv6 makes the earlier practical objection more specific; it does not reject IPv6 deployment itself.
조건: The hypothetical recommendation email is an example used to question effectiveness, not evidence that LACNIC actually sent one. · The author also doubts the objective is achievable; opposition must not be reduced to a cosmetic wording preference.
es muy ambigua en su texto que hace imposible su implementaci?n pr?ctica.
Si es algo asi, el impacto que esta politica tendra sera cero y no tiene caso implementarla. Por esa raz?n estoy en contra.
Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported · Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)
평가: 일관성 · The connectivity-dispute and global-registry objections both ask for an explained problem and an implementable mechanism. Advice to seek broader feedback on the latter does not conflict with criticism of ineffective recommendations in the former.
조건: The author does not reject IPv6 deployment or all possible global coordination.
Sugiero al autor esclarecer que quiere hacer y como se debe hacer.
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The contribution points to an existing investigation mechanism and leaves the alleged policy violation unresolved. It does not state a position on the critical-infrastructure reserve pool or provide another position to compare.
IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The contribution points to an existing investigation mechanism and leaves the alleged policy violation unresolved. It does not state a position on the critical-infrastructure reserve pool or provide another position to compare.
조건: An allegation against an organization is not established misconduct. · A contextual link to a policy must not turn an investigation comment into a vote on that policy.
Whether or not the organization reported by Mr. Guilmette has broken LACNIC policies is subject to be investigated, it seems that there is a mechanism to deal with fraudulent organizations.
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The author supports removing end-user assignment requirements, asks for a clear old/new comparison and deletion scope, and prefers a substantive explanation over merely following other RIRs. One contribution establishes this qualified position but not its persistence over time.
Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The author supports removing end-user assignment requirements, asks for a clear old/new comparison and deletion scope, and prefers a substantive explanation over merely following other RIRs. One contribution establishes this qualified position but not its persistence over time.
조건: The quoted allocation paragraphs are the text being queried, not a new rule authored or necessarily endorsed by the sender.
De acuerdo con la politica.
los requisitos se eliminan porque no son realmente importantes.
Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements · Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users
평가: 일관성 · Accepting clearer ASN requirements and supporting removal of unimportant end-user requirements both distinguish useful simplification from an unsupported claim that all existing rules are inadequate.
조건: This comparison concerns the stated reasons in these contributions, not every provision of either policy.
de acuerdo que la redacci?n actual la hace m?s entendible sin cambiarla demasiado.
los requisitos se eliminan porque no son realmente importantes.
관점 일관성: 일관성
The sequence moves from questioning the need for different planning rules to proposing end-user size exceptions and finally clarifying noncommercial LIR status. The last message explicitly reports improved understanding after watching the presentation. This refines the classification issue while preserving the demand for a clear mechanism; it does not establish a vote for the disputed wording.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
평가: 일관성 · The sequence moves from questioning the need for different planning rules to proposing end-user size exceptions and finally clarifying noncommercial LIR status. The last message explicitly reports improved understanding after watching the presentation. This refines the classification issue while preserving the demand for a clear mechanism; it does not establish a vote for the disputed wording.
조건: The earlier statement that a non-ISP is an end user is qualified by the later recognition that noncommercial organizations making subassignments can be LIRs. · Suggestions to remove a /32 cap, allow a /28, reserve adjacent space or clarify LIR definitions are alternatives, not proof that any was adopted. · The account of an example in Spain remains the sender's understanding, not an independently verified policy finding.
No estoy en desacuerdo pero no me queda claro como con el texto anterior
Creo que el problema real es si llega un ente usuario final con una necesidad de m?s de un /32.
Si no son usuarios finales son ISPs y entonces pueden pedir algo mayor a /32.
Creo que una organizaci?n que no es ISP es un End-user.
Revise el video de la propuesta y me queda un poco mas claro.
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The author asks whether the two IPv4-size proposals duplicate each other, seeks an explanation of the intended problem and acknowledges clarification. No substantive vote is stated, and a mistaken proposal number that is subsequently corrected is not a policy reversal.
Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The author asks whether the two IPv4-size proposals duplicate each other, seeks an explanation of the intended problem and acknowledges clarification. No substantive vote is stated, and a mistaken proposal number that is subsequently corrected is not a policy reversal.
조건: Thanks and acknowledgements are not endorsements. · The statement about a /24 objective must be read alongside the acknowledged numbering correction.
Me parece que son diferentes politicas que proponen lo mismo?
Podr?as clarificar que problema quieres resolver?
Gracias por la correccion!
Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers · Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The shared discussion contains questions about overlap, clarification of the intended problem and acknowledged corrections. It supplies no competing substantive positions from which to infer a contradiction between the two IPv4-size proposals.
조건: A correction of identifiers is not evidence of a changed policy preference.
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The comparative questions and subsequent acknowledgements show clarification of the two proposals, not a sequence of supporting and opposing positions. The record does not establish the author's final vote on this proposal.
Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The comparative questions and subsequent acknowledgements show clarification of the two proposals, not a sequence of supporting and opposing positions. The record does not establish the author's final vote on this proposal.
조건: The initially confused identifiers are not treated as accurate policy attribution. · Acknowledging a clearer explanation does not establish support for its substantive result.
Me parece que son diferentes politicas que proponen lo mismo?
Gracias. Muy claro.
Ya muy claro. Gracias a ambos!
Modify the minimum size of IPv4 assignments to Internet Service Providers · Modify the minimum size of initial allocations to ISPs
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The shared discussion contains questions about overlap, clarification of the intended problem and acknowledged corrections. It supplies no competing substantive positions from which to infer a contradiction between the two IPv4-size proposals.
조건: A correction of identifiers is not evidence of a changed policy preference.
Me parece que son diferentes politicas que proponen lo mismo?
관점 일관성: 일관성
The author requires a demonstrated need before shortening last call, explains why time for community and board review matters, and challenges conclusions drawn from sparse comment counts. The later examples of zero, one or ninety days illustrate underdetermination; they do not replace the earlier conditional preference for thirty calendar days or twenty working days.
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.
평가: 일관성 · The author requires a demonstrated need before shortening last call, explains why time for community and board review matters, and challenges conclusions drawn from sparse comment counts. The later examples of zero, one or ninety days illustrate underdetermination; they do not replace the earlier conditional preference for thirty calendar days or twenty working days.
조건: The stated alternative applies only if shortening the period is justified and the expedited process is inadequate. · The message explaining the purpose of last call does not independently choose a number of days.
A menos que haya justificaci?n y casos espec?ficos
puede ser 30 d?as naturales o 20 d?as h?biles.
el directorio reciba comentarios de la comunidad y evaluaciones del staff que le permitan ratificar o no la politica
El problema con tener pocos datos es que podemos generalizar y concluir cualquier tipo de cosas.
관점 일관성: 일관성
Objections to an undefined global organization category, an unexplained problem and the appropriate policy forum are compatible with subsequently recommending wider consultation. Explaining that an idea may be discussed informally does not withdraw the earlier concerns about how a global policy would be adopted.
Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)
평가: 일관성 · Objections to an undefined global organization category, an unexplained problem and the appropriate policy forum are compatible with subsequently recommending wider consultation. Explaining that an idea may be discussed informally does not withdraw the earlier concerns about how a global policy would be adopted.
조건: Soliciting feedback on other RIR lists is not endorsement of a Global Internet Registry. · The author's view that the proposal requires a global-policy process is distinguished from an authoritative procedural determination.
Si hay un problema que se desee resolver creo que debe explicarse en la pol?tica.
debe ser tratada como una pol?tica global.
Quiza podrias enviar un correo a las listas de ARIN, APNIC, AFRINIC y RIPE NCC con tu idea para que recibas feedback.
no importa si es formal pidiendo consenso a trav?s de una pol?tica o una simple discusi?n de la idea en la lista.
Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported · Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)
평가: 일관성 · The connectivity-dispute and global-registry objections both ask for an explained problem and an implementable mechanism. Advice to seek broader feedback on the latter does not conflict with criticism of ineffective recommendations in the former.
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
The author welcomes the revised sub-assignment wording as addressing his concern, while asking whether university broadband could still be misclassified. This qualified support is explicit, but a single contribution cannot establish a lasting position or a later reversal.
Clarifications of Sub-Assignments
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · The author welcomes the revised sub-assignment wording as addressing his concern, while asking whether university broadband could still be misclassified. This qualified support is explicit, but a single contribution cannot establish a lasting position or a later reversal.
Creo que va por buen camino
Supongo que una facultad de una universidad
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
Si hay un problema que se desee resolver creo que debe explicarse en la pol?tica.
Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users · Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
평가: 일관성 · Support for removing unnecessary end-user requirements is compatible with asking whether larger initial allocations require a different cap or clearer LIR classification. Both contributions seek a substantive explanation and an intelligible rule, while addressing different constraints.
조건: This does not establish support for the exact proposed planning-horizon text.
Y finalmente creo que ser?a mejor darle el ?nfasis que los requisitos se eliminan porque no son realmente importantes.
Creo que en todo caso habr? que aclarar que se define como LIR
gobiernos (o universidades, o entes) que subasignan caen en esa categoria a pesar de no proveer servicios comerciales.
Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users · Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
평가: 일관성 · Support for removing unnecessary end-user requirements is compatible with asking whether larger initial allocations require a different cap or clearer LIR classification. Both contributions seek a substantive explanation and an intelligible rule, while addressing different constraints.
조건: This does not establish support for the exact proposed planning-horizon text.
Y finalmente creo que ser?a mejor darle el ?nfasis que los requisitos se eliminan porque no son realmente importantes.
Creo que en todo caso habr? que aclarar que se define como LIR
Me parece que son diferentes politicas que proponen lo mismo?
Gracias por la correccion!
Gracias por la correccion!
평가: 일관성 · Supporting a PDP update while remaining open to splitting appeals is compatible with opposing a later specific shortening of last call without evidence of need. General support for process reform is not unconditional support for every subsequent amendment.
조건: The proposals address different process details at different times.
acuerdo con el texto actual pero tampoco estoy negado a las sugerencias
no veo necesidad de reducir el plazo.
조건: The author does not reject IPv6 deployment or all possible global coordination.
Sugiero al autor esclarecer que quiere hacer y como se debe hacer.
Si hay un problema que se desee resolver creo que debe explicarse en la pol?tica.
