Carlos Plasencia

O papel público, as decisões ou a participação jurídica documentados de Carlos Plasencia podem influenciar investimentos em redes, acesso ao mercado, políticas de infraestrutura ou limites de responsabilidade; este dossiê separa os registros citados da verificação do cargo atual.

Os dados disponíveis abrangem Cargos: policy proposal author (LACNIC).

Mais recente 2026-09-20

Cargos: policy proposal author (LACNIC)

Evidências

Papel público: As fontes públicas citadas identificam Carlos Plasencia como uma pessoa ligada a decisões, litígios, governança ou operações relevantes para a infraestrutura da internet; o cargo e a afiliação atuais ainda precisam ser verificados.

Detalhes relacionados

Carlos Plasencia
wnload TXT PDF DOCX Original language Español Last modified 14/04/2014 Status Implemented 100 %. Authors Juan Alejo - Version [1] Carlos Plasencia - Version [2] In discussion 25/11/2013 Last call for comments 24/01/2014 - 14/02/2014 Ratification by the board 04/03/2014 Ratified 25/03/2014 Implemented 15/08/2014 Compare versions Version 1 Version 2 Summary T...
public people profile

Última atualização: 2026-09-20

Cargos

Role:policy proposal author (LACNIC)Ainda não avaliadoHistórico

Fatos com fonte

Participação em políticas RIR

1RIRs com participação

18Políticas com participação

35Mensagens de política

5 de jun. de 2014Primeira participação

29 de abr. de 2016Última participação

LAC-2013-3Adapting the allocation / assignment policy for IPv4 exhaustion.Desconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2013-4Management of Returned Internet ResourcesDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
Management of Returned Internet Resources
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
Condições: Reporting a community outcome is not treated as personal support.
5 de jun. de 2014
LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources
Management of Returned Internet Resources · Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The retained record reports parallel forum outcomes for both proposals but does not state the participant's own substantive position on either one, so no cross-policy consistency conclusion is supported.
Condições: Consensus and last-call reporting are treated as community outcomes rather than as the participant's personal policy positions.
5 de jun. de 2014
LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources
5 de jun. de 2014
LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
LAC-2014-1Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deploymentDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The only retained material reports that the proposal reached consensus and entered last call; it does not state the participant's own substantive position.
Condições: Reporting a community outcome is not treated as personal support.
5 de jun. de 2014
LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Management of Returned Internet Resources · Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The retained record reports parallel forum outcomes for both proposals but does not state the participant's own substantive position on either one, so no cross-policy consistency conclusion is supported.
Condições: Consensus and last-call reporting are treated as community outcomes rather than as the participant's personal policy positions.
5 de jun. de 2014
LAC-2013-04 Management of Returned Internet Resources
5 de jun. de 2014
LAC-2014-01 Creation of an IPv4 reserve exclusively for IPv6 deployment
LAC-2014-2Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirementsDesconhecida · 3 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The retained messages report consensus, ratification, and implementation timing, but do not express the participant's own policy position.
Modification to the text describing ASN distribution requirements
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The retained messages report consensus, ratification, and implementation timing, but do not express the participant's own policy position.
Condições: Administrative implementation notices are not treated as votes or endorsements.
26 de fev. de 2015
The proposal was RATIFIED. However, it will be implemented as soon as the corresponding settings will be completed in LACNIC?s system.
LAC-2014-3Update to the Policy Development ProcessDesconhecida · 2 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The supplied material lists the Policy Development Process update for presentation but provides no substantive participant viewpoint on it.
Update to the Policy Development Process
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The supplied material lists the Policy Development Process update for presentation but provides no substantive participant viewpoint on it.
Condições: A separate retained observation assigned to this policy discusses another proposal's status and does not supply a position on this policy.
10 de mai. de 2015
LAC-2014-3: Update to the Policy Development Process
LAC-2015-1Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC.Desconhecida · 3 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The participant asks whether the community wishes to continue or abandon the proposal, but does not state a personal support or opposition position.
Trigger 2.3.2.18 when a justified request larger than /22 is received which can not be allocated from any remaining pool of addresses at LACNIC.
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The participant asks whether the community wishes to continue or abandon the proposal, but does not state a personal support or opposition position.
Condições: A request for community direction is procedural and is not treated as the sender's vote.
27 de jul. de 2015
Would you like to continue discussing this proposal or do you believe it should be abandoned?
LAC-2015-2Inter-RIR TransfersDesconhecida · 3 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The retained messages list, summarize, and report the forum outcome for Inter-RIR Transfers, but do not identify the participant's own position.
Inter-RIR Transfers
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The retained messages list, summarize, and report the forum outcome for Inter-RIR Transfers, but do not identify the participant's own position.
Condições: Reported vote totals and status are community outcomes, not personal votes.
8 de out. de 2015
2015-2: Inter-RIR transfers. 17 in favor, 87 against, 33 abstentions. ABANDONED
LAC-2015-3IPv4 exhaustion policy with a scheduled termination date and the scheduled return of large users' blocks.Desconhecida · 3 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The retained messages report the proposal's discussion and eventual abandonment, but do not state the participant's own substantive viewpoint.
IPv4 exhaustion policy with a scheduled termination date and the scheduled return of large users' blocks.
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The retained messages report the proposal's discussion and eventual abandonment, but do not state the participant's own substantive viewpoint.
Condições: A status change to abandoned is not evidence of the sender's personal opposition.
29 de abr. de 2016
The status of proposals ?2015-3 IPv4 exhaustion policy with a scheduled termination date and the scheduled return of large users' blocks? has changed from ?UNDER DISCUSSION? to ?ABANDONED?.
LAC-2015-4Resource Recovery TimelineDesconhecida · 2 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The retained messages summarize the Resource Recovery Timeline proposal and report its forum result, but do not state the participant's own policy position.
Resource Recovery Timeline
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The retained messages summarize the Resource Recovery Timeline proposal and report its forum result, but do not state the participant's own policy position.
Condições: Reported vote totals and last-call status are community outcomes, not personal votes.
8 de out. de 2015
2015-4: Resource Recovery Timeline. 83 in favor, 3 against, 14 abstentions. APPROVED ? The proposal is now in the last call for comments period.
LAC-2015-5Increase the minimum period of time required before a block can be transferred under section 2.3.2.18Desconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The retained message summarizes the proposed three-year transfer waiting period but does not express the participant's own support or opposition.
Increase the minimum period of time required before a block can be transferred under section 2.3.2.18
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The retained message summarizes the proposed three-year transfer waiting period but does not express the participant's own support or opposition.
Condições: A neutral policy summary is not treated as a personal viewpoint.
14 de set. de 2015
2015-5: Increase the minimum period of time required before a block can be transferred under section 2.3.2.18 Summary: This proposal seeks to modify section 2.3.2.18, increasing the period of time required before an assigned block can be transfered to 3 years, from the one-year period currently in force.
LAC-2015-6Modify the scope of IPv4 Exhaustion Phase 2 for the regionDesconhecida · 2 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The retained messages describe the expedited process and invite comments for or against the proposal, without stating the participant's own position.
Modify the scope of IPv4 Exhaustion Phase 2 for the region
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The retained messages describe the expedited process and invite comments for or against the proposal, without stating the participant's own position.
Condições: Soliciting views on approval is not treated as an endorsement or objection.
27 de out. de 2015
We would like to invite you all to participate by expressing your views and comments in favor or against approval of the proposal.
LAC-2016-1Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supportedDesconhecida · 3 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The retained messages announce and describe successive versions of the IPv4-IPv6 connectivity proposal but do not state the participant's own substantive view.
Settling IPv4-IPv6 connectivity disputes when only one of the protocols is supported
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The retained messages announce and describe successive versions of the IPv4-IPv6 connectivity proposal but do not state the participant's own substantive view.
Condições: Quoting proposal text as a forum chair is treated as procedural transmission.
8 de jan. de 2016
The community's comments and opinions are essential to the proper functioning of the policy development process.- Do you support this policy or are you against it?
LAC-2016-2IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.Desconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The only retained observation lists the critical-infrastructure IPv4 reserve proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The only retained observation lists the critical-infrastructure IPv4 reserve proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
Condições: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.
18 de abr. de 2016
LAC-2016-2: IPv4 reserve pool for critical Internet infrastructure in the region.
LAC-2016-3Remove the reference to a provider’s "multihomed or non-multihomed status".Desconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The only retained observation lists the multihoming-status proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
Remove the reference to a provider’s "multihomed or non-multihomed status".
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The only retained observation lists the multihoming-status proposal among policies scheduled for discussion, without expressing a personal position.
Condições: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.
18 de abr. de 2016
LAC-2016-3: Remove the reference to a provider?s "multihomed or non-multihomed status".
LAC-2016-4Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end usersDesconhecida · 3 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The retained messages announce and describe versions of the direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The retained messages announce and describe versions of the direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Condições: Publishing version changes as a forum chair is not treated as a personal policy position.
28 de mar. de 2016
Proposal LAC-2016-4 has been updated to version 2.
LAC-2016-5Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocationsDesconhecida · 3 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The retained messages announce and describe versions of the initial IPv6 allocation-size proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The retained messages announce and describe versions of the initial IPv6 allocation-size proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Condições: Publishing version changes as a forum chair is not treated as a personal policy position.
30 de mar. de 2016
Proposal LAC-2016-5 has been updated to version 2.
LAC-2016-6Modify the initial assignment size and the requirements for subsequent direct IPv6 assignments to end sitesDesconhecida · 2 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The retained messages announce and list the subsequent direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Modify the initial assignment size and the requirements for subsequent direct IPv6 assignments to end sites
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The retained messages announce and list the subsequent direct IPv6 assignment proposal but do not state the participant's own support or opposition.
Condições: Receipt and agenda notices are procedural evidence only.
31 de mar. de 2016
A new Policy Proposal has been received and assigned the following ID:LAC-2016-6.
LAC-2016-7Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocationsDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The only retained observation associated with this policy is an agenda listing of an IPv6 allocation-size proposal; it does not establish the participant's own viewpoint.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The only retained observation associated with this policy is an agenda listing of an IPv6 allocation-size proposal; it does not establish the participant's own viewpoint.
Condições: Agenda listing is procedural evidence only.
18 de abr. de 2016
LAC-2016-5: Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations.