RICARDO PATARA

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

확인 가능한 근거는 역할: Registration Service Manager (LACNIC)를 다룹니다.

최신 2026-10-21

역할: Registration Service Manager (LACNIC)

신뢰도

정보 유형: RICARDO PATARA의 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

Role:Registration Service Manager (LACNIC)아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

Role:Internet Number Resources Manager (NIC.BR)아직 평가되지 않음

Role:Address Policy Working Group participant (LACNIC)아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

Role:CTO (LACNIC)· … – 2010아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

Role:author (NIC.BR)아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

Role:author아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

출처 정보

RIR 정책 참여

1참여한 RIR

28참여한 정책

68총 정책 메시지 수

2003. 4. 11.최초 참여

2018. 9. 26.마지막 참여

LAC-2012-8Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
He withheld a final view and questioned disputed blocks, transfer restrictions and records. One message cannot establish a position over time.
Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · He withheld a final view and questioned disputed blocks, transfer restrictions and records. One message cannot establish a position over time.
2013. 4. 23.
LAC-2013-1Publishing information on reassigned IP address blocks via FTP반대 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
He questioned using allocation postal addresses for geolocation. This single objection cannot establish a sustained view on the entire proposal.
Publishing information on reassigned IP address blocks via FTP
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · He questioned using allocation postal addresses for geolocation. This single objection cannot establish a sustained view on the entire proposal.
2013. 6. 14.
Estimado Jorge, En un primer momento quisiera solamente comentar que si el objetivo principal de la propuesta es tener un mecanismos para "geo localizaci?n" de usuarios de algunas IPs no creo que se esa la mejor soluci?n. El hecho de tener una IP asignada para una empresa con una determinada direcci?n postal no implica ninguna garant?a que es all? que est? siendo utilizada. Saludos
LAC-2013-2Principles Governing the Distribution of Number Resources알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
He objected to an unannounced last call, rather than explicitly endorsing or rejecting the allocation principles. His substantive position remains unestablished.
Principles Governing the Distribution of Number Resources
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · He objected to an unannounced last call, rather than explicitly endorsing or rejecting the allocation principles. His substantive position remains unestablished.
2013. 11. 19.
Me sorprende mirar en la pagina de lacnic que la propuesta lac-2013-02 figurar?a ya en el per?odo de "last call" http://www.lacnic.net/web/lacnic/politicas siendo que no hubo ningun a?ncio acerca de eso en la lista! que pasa? si queremos comentarios hay que llamarlos en la lista!! Saludos
LAC-2013-4Management of Returned Internet Resources알 수 없음 · 4 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
LAC-2014-2Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
He first sought consultation, then reported why global-policy action was impractical. These clarifications do not establish a personal reversal.
Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · He first sought consultation, then reported why global-policy action was impractical. These clarifications do not establish a personal reversal.
2014. 6. 4.
2014. 6. 17.
LAC-2014-3Update to the Policy Development Process알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
LAC-2015-4Resource Recovery Timeline알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
LAC-2016-2IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
Questions about an additional reserve became qualified acceptance after revision; he still requested coherent prefix limits and implementation timing.
IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.
평가: 일관성 · Questions about an additional reserve became qualified acceptance after revision; he still requested coherent prefix limits and implementation timing.
2016. 2. 12.
2016. 2. 23.
Hola Edmundo, que tal? Me parece bien el ajuste propuesto. Mis unicos comentarios: - como tu propones ajustes a los p?rrafos 11.1 y 11.2, quiz?s proponer tambi?n ajustes al 2.3.3.2 para que el prefijo m?ximo all? sea /22 y no /20 como esta actualmente. As? se mantiene coherencia. - caso la propuesta sea aprobada y implementada antes de la fase 3, una organizaci?n de infra critica tendria asignaci?n desde el espacio fase 2 (actual), o ya de esa reserva especial? un abrazo Ricardo Patara
LAC-2016-5Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations반대 · 13 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
He consistently defended a four-year justification horizon and questioned a separate non-ISP category. Accepting alternative wording did not endorse this proposal.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
평가: 일관성 · He consistently defended a four-year justification horizon and questioned a separate non-ISP category. Accepting alternative wording did not endorse this proposal.
2016. 3. 11.
2016. 3. 31.
Con todo el respeto, estoy en contra. no veo clara esa necesidad. Saludos Ricardo Patara
2016. 8. 30.
2016. 8. 30.
2016. 8. 30.
Hola Jordi, Comprendo. ok, pero si la "longevidad" de la asignaci?n es, por ejemplo, para 4 a?os, cual el problema? sigo insistiendo, cual el problema de un plan de uso de asiganci?n considerando 4 a?os para una empresa de gobierno? no :) todavia no me queda claro que son distintos un abrazo
LAC-2017-2One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC반대 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
He opposed the transfer proposal’s rationale, citing IPv6 deployment and price concerns. One statement cannot establish persistence over time.
One-way interregional transfers to LACNIC
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · He opposed the transfer proposal’s rationale, citing IPv6 deployment and price concerns. One statement cannot establish persistence over time.
2017. 2. 3.
LAC-2017-5Addenda − Resource revocation반대 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
He preferred existing staff and board discretion for extraordinary recovery cases. The single statement is insufficient to assess change over time.
Addenda − Resource revocation
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · He preferred existing staff and board discretion for extraordinary recovery cases. The single statement is insufficient to assess change over time.
2017. 4. 26.
LAC-2017-6Modify the Resource Recovery Process지지 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
A question about preventing administrators from restoring reverse delegations preceded explicit support. The later support does not contradict that implementation concern.
Modify the Resource Recovery Process
평가: 일관성 · A question about preventing administrators from restoring reverse delegations preceded explicit support. The later support does not contradict that implementation concern.
2017. 4. 26.
Hola Edmundo, que tal? Me parece bastante interesante la propuesta. Pero una consulta. Si solamente se quita la delegaci?n Inversa pero se le permite al administrador ingresar el sistema de administraci?n de IPs no habr?a garant?as que de el no las vuelva a registrar, no? Has pensando en algo como tambi?n impedirles a los administradores que acedan al sistema? Un abrazo Ricardo Patara
2017. 8. 17.
Hola Yo soporto esa propuesta. Saludos Ricardo Patara
LAC-2017-8MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS대안 제안 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
He clarified that a new prefix should reflect demonstrated need, then revised the wording about unavailable adjacent space. This is refinement, not a demonstrated reversal.
MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS
평가: 일관성 · He clarified that a new prefix should reflect demonstrated need, then revised the wording about unavailable adjacent space. This is refinement, not a demonstrated reversal.
2017. 8. 4.
2017. 8. 22.
LAC-2018-1Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)반대 · 4 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
He repeatedly opposed a global registry, questioning its necessity, regional framework and practical benefits. The later explanations maintain the earlier objection.
Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)
평가: 일관성 · He repeatedly opposed a global registry, questioning its necessity, regional framework and practical benefits. The later explanations maintain the earlier objection.
2018. 1. 22.
Hola, A titulo personal. Soy contra la propuesta. No me parece concreta la necesidad/problema presentado como justificativa saludos Ricardo Patara
2018. 3. 7.
2018. 3. 7.
2018. 3. 8.
LAC-2018-12Minor revision to the PDP수정을 조건으로 지지 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
He considered the correction fair but rejected retaining a proposal without restarting the debate period. This is conditional support, not unqualified approval.
Minor revision to the PDP
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · He considered the correction fair but rejected retaining a proposal without restarting the debate period. This is conditional support, not unqualified approval.
2018. 9. 14.
LAC-2018-2Update the policy on transfers due to mergers/acquisitions지지 · 5 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
He defended a waiting period against transfers motivated only by address trading, then considered corporate-group exceptions. Openness to examples does not show withdrawal of the safeguard.
Update the policy on transfers due to mergers/acquisitions
평가: 일관성 · He defended a waiting period against transfers motivated only by address trading, then considered corporate-group exceptions. Openness to examples does not show withdrawal of the safeguard.
2018. 3. 7.
2018. 9. 25.
Hola Juan, que tal? Antes de todo, felicitaciones :-) de total acuerdo, pero no creo que al poner criterios en las pol?ticas lacnic se pone como un regulador. ya existen otras reglas y "restricciones" implementadas y ni por eso se le ve a lacnic de esa forma comprendo los puntos y son muy validos. ok, agradezco el aporte un abrazo
2018. 9. 25.
Hola Alejandro. muy interesante ese caso, confeso que no lo habia pensado. agradezco todo el aporte ac? y en el foro. un abrazo
2018. 9. 26.
Hola Alejandro, ;-) nuevamente, agradezco el ejemplo. muy importante. es una opci?n interesante. capaz que estudiar bien y con lacnic para ver si les sale facil identificar empresas de un mismo grupo. los grandes s?n los faciles, pero habr? otros menos conocidos y se necesitar? un procedimento. entedido. agradezco todo el aporte. abrazos
Registration and validation of abuse contact · Update the policy on transfers due to mergers/acquisitions
평가: 일관성 · His resistance to prescribing ISP abuse-handling methods is compatible with supporting transfer eligibility rules: he explicitly distinguishes operational control from resource-allocation criteria.
LAC-2018-5Registration and validation of abuse contact수정을 조건으로 지지 · 8 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
He supported valid abuse contacts while rejecting prescribed operational methods and excessive validation frequency. Later conditional support retained these concerns; it was not blanket approval.
Registration and validation of abuse contact
평가: 일관성 · He supported valid abuse contacts while rejecting prescribed operational methods and excessive validation frequency. Later conditional support retained these concerns; it was not blanket approval.
2018. 3. 5.
2018. 3. 8.
2018. 8. 14.
2018. 9. 26.
Registration and validation of abuse contact · Update the policy on transfers due to mergers/acquisitions
평가: 일관성 · His resistance to prescribing ISP abuse-handling methods is compatible with supporting transfer eligibility rules: he explicitly distinguishes operational control from resource-allocation criteria.
2018. 8. 15.
2018. 9. 25.
Hola Juan, que tal? Antes de todo, felicitaciones :-) de total acuerdo, pero no creo que al poner criterios en las pol?ticas lacnic se pone como un regulador. ya existen otras reglas y "restricciones" implementadas y ni por eso se le ve a lacnic de esa forma comprendo los puntos y son muy validos. ok, agradezco el aporte un abrazo
LAC-2018-6Simplification of the PDP반대 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
He repeatedly opposed PDP simplification as proposed, defending the public forum and existing remote participation. The retained arguments show continuity.
Simplification of the PDP
평가: 일관성 · He repeatedly opposed PDP simplification as proposed, defending the public forum and existing remote participation. The retained arguments show continuity.
2018. 3. 14.
Hola Jordi, Soy contra la propuesta como escrita. A los que no pueden ir al foro publico se les d? todavia v?rios dias para presentar puntos que tecnicamente sean justificativas para no avanzar con la pol?tica. El tema del consenso tampoco ha sido un problema en la regi?n (veo que estas con una discusi?n fuerte en el ripe). Saludos
2018. 3. 14.
LAC-2018-7Clarifications of Sub-Assignments알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
He challenged an interpretation that would make universities’ internal assignments noncompliant and asked for staff clarification. One exchange cannot establish a lasting position.
Clarifications of Sub-Assignments
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · He challenged an interpretation that would make universities’ internal assignments noncompliant and asked for staff clarification. One exchange cannot establish a lasting position.
2018. 5. 2.
LAC-2018-8Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users반대 · 3 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
He opposed the end-user transfer proposal over routing fragmentation and later also demanded explicit eligibility criteria. The additional objection preserves the earlier position.
Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users
평가: 일관성 · He opposed the end-user transfer proposal over routing fragmentation and later also demanded explicit eligibility criteria. The additional objection preserves the earlier position.
2018. 5. 21.
Hola, Estoy en contra por la raz?n de que permitir que se le transfiera el bloque ya asignado al enduser por su upstream va a provocar mucha desagregaci?n. y no soluciona ning?n problema (la renumeraci?n es algo que existe desde "siempre" y nunca ha sido un problema) saludos Ricardo Patara
2018. 5. 22.
2018. 9. 5.
Buen dia. Yo sigo en contra la LAC-2018-8 como escrita. No veo necesidad para para tal. Y tambi?n hay un problema de que en el texto de la misma no se indica que criterios seguir para hacer dicha transferencia. Eso debe estar en el texto para que quede claro Saludos Ricardo Patara
Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users · Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs
평가: 일관성 · His objections to both end-user and ISP transfers rely on the same routing-fragmentation concern. The different recipient categories do not establish inconsistent treatment.
2018. 5. 21.
Hola, Estoy en contra por la raz?n de que permitir que se le transfiera el bloque ya asignado al enduser por su upstream va a provocar mucha desagregaci?n. y no soluciona ning?n problema (la renumeraci?n es algo que existe desde "siempre" y nunca ha sido un problema) saludos Ricardo Patara
LAC-2018-9Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs반대 · 11 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
He repeatedly opposed carving customer blocks out of upstream allocations, citing routing fragmentation and unequal benefits. Later wording concerns reinforce, rather than reverse, that objection.
Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs
평가: 일관성 · He repeatedly opposed carving customer blocks out of upstream allocations, citing routing fragmentation and unequal benefits. Later wording concerns reinforce, rather than reverse, that objection.
2018. 4. 2.
2018. 4. 3.
2018. 5. 3.
2018. 5. 3.
2018. 5. 30.
Jordi, Tu mismo eres un defensor de que los textos sean lo m?s claros posibles para evitar diferentes interpretaciones. Es diferente de tener una instruci?n de como se utilizar un recurso de que como asignarlo. Dejar para la interpretaci?n del staff est? muy malo. saludos Ricardo Patara
Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users · Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs
평가: 일관성 · His objections to both end-user and ISP transfers rely on the same routing-fragmentation concern. The different recipient categories do not establish inconsistent treatment.
2018. 5. 21.
Hola, Estoy en contra por la raz?n de que permitir que se le transfiera el bloque ya asignado al enduser por su upstream va a provocar mucha desagregaci?n. y no soluciona ning?n problema (la renumeraci?n es algo que existe desde "siempre" y nunca ha sido un problema) saludos Ricardo Patara
LAC-2019-12RPKI ASN 0 ROA알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
LAC-2020-9PDP Chair Election알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
LAC-2022-4PDP Chair Elections알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
LAC-2024-4Log of Allocations from the Pool of IPv4 Addresses Reserved for Critical Infrastructure알 수 없음 · 0 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
LAC-2026-3Require Valid ROA Coverage for Requesting Additional Resources알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
unnumbered-ipv4-working-group-3-2002IPv4 address block allocation policies — Working Group 3 (2002)알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
unnumbered-multihomed-end-user-microallocation-2003Multihomed End User Microallocation (2003)알 수 없음 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
He questioned how continued multihoming could be verified. This single operational concern does not establish support, opposition or consistency over time.
Multihomed End User Microallocation (2003)
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · He questioned how continued multihoming could be verified. This single operational concern does not establish support, opposition or consistency over time.
2003. 4. 11.
Hola, Yo pienso que ser?a muy complicado para LACNIC verificar si la organizaci?n que recibi? bloque IP de LACNIC bajo ?sta pol?tica sigue como multi-homed despu?s de un cierto timpo. No veo cual es la manera m?s segura de hacer esto. Ricardo Patara.

RICARDO PATARA

신뢰도

관련 정보

역할

RIR 정책 참여

RIR 정책 참여