Perfil da pessoa

Pessoa

Jordi Palet Martinez

O papel público, as decisões ou a participação jurídica documentados de Jordi Palet Martinez 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: author (The IPv6 Company).

Mais recente 2026-09-28

Cargos: author (The IPv6 Company)

Evidências

Papel público: As fontes públicas citadas identificam Jordi Palet Martinez 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

Jordi Palet Martinez
Authors Jordi Palet Martínez Anupam Agrawal
public people profile
Jordi Palet Martinez
Author Jordi Palet Martinez [The IPv6 Company]
public people profile
Jordi Palet Martinez
Jordi Palet Martinez [Consulintel]
public people profile

Última atualização: 2026-09-28

Cargos

Role:author (The IPv6 Company)Ainda não avaliadoHistórico

Role:author (Consulintel)Ainda não avaliadoHistórico

Fatos com fonte

Participação em políticas RIR

4RIRs com participação

71Políticas com participação

141Mensagens de política

11 de jul. de 2006Primeira participação

21 de jan. de 2022Última participação

afpol-v60604Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-OrganizationsDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The author acknowledges that the proposal copied text from his RIPE draft and says to replace RIPE NCC with AFRINIC. That is a specific clarification of intended regional applicability, not an explicit vote on all provisions and not evidence of a changed position over time.
Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author acknowledges that the proposal copied text from his RIPE draft and says to replace RIPE NCC with AFRINIC. That is a specific clarification of intended regional applicability, not an explicit vote on all provisions and not evidence of a changed position over time.
Condições: The clarification does not by itself verify that the published draft was amended or adopted.
11 de jul. de 2006
Is a typo, replace RIPE NCC with AfriNIC and you're done.
11 de jul. de 2006
This happened in the policy because the text was taken from my proposal to RIPE NCC and we didn't reviewed accurately all the text.
Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations · IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites | AFPUB-2007-v6-001
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · Correcting the region named in a 2006 eligibility clause and arguing for justified organizational eligibility in a distinct 2007 proposal are compatible but not directly comparable acts. The source record does not support either a contradiction claim or a strong longitudinal-consistency claim across the two proposals.
Condições: The proposals have separate source identities and must not be merged solely because both concern IPv6 PI. · No position is inferred from text quoted from another author.
11 de jul. de 2006
Is a typo, replace RIPE NCC with AfriNIC and you're done.
19 de mar. de 2007
In principle our policies are not made for individuals accessing those resources, unless clearly justified (and in this case I think a good justification is to be an organization).
AFPUB-2007-V6-001IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites | AFPUB-2007-v6-001Apoio com mudanças · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The author treats organizational use as a good justification for direct resources and warns that widespread individual assignments could impose routing costs even when address space itself is sufficient. The express qualification for justified cases prevents reading this as an absolute ban on every individual assignment. One message cannot establish whether that preference persisted or changed.
IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites | AFPUB-2007-v6-001
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author treats organizational use as a good justification for direct resources and warns that widespread individual assignments could impose routing costs even when address space itself is sufficient. The express qualification for justified cases prevents reading this as an absolute ban on every individual assignment. One message cannot establish whether that preference persisted or changed.
Condições: The population and router-cost figures are illustrative assertions by the author, not verified measurements. · This concerns IPv6 PI assignment eligibility, not a stance on the separately documented AFRINIC policy-development-process proposal. · The earlier July 2006 clarification is now linked to the separately recovered afpol-v60604 proposal; it is not an earlier version of this verified policy corpus.
19 de mar. de 2007
In principle our policies are not made for individuals accessing those resources, unless clearly justified (and in this case I think a good justification is to be an organization).
19 de mar. de 2007
Is not only about the addressing space, which probably could perfectly cope with that for 100% of the world population if using /48, but what about the routing slots ?
19 de mar. de 2007
We need a balance here.
AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT07AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT07Desconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
AFPUB-2026-GEN-002-DRAFT02Policy Compliance DashboardDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
AFPUB-2026-GEN-003-DRAFT01PPM DatesDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
AFPUB-2026-IPv4-001-DRAFT02IPv4 Soft LandingDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT02Amendment of UtilisationDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT03IPv6 in Soft LandingDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-121Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policyDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-122Updating “Subsequent IPv6 allocation” policyDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-124Clarification on Sub-AssignmentsDesconhecida · 9 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-125Validation of “abuse-mailbox” and other IRT emailsDesconhecida · 2 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-126PDP UpdateDesconhecida · 6 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-128Multihoming not required for ASNDesconhecida · 2 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-130Modification of transfer policiesDesconhecida · 8 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-131Editorial changes in IPv6 PolicyDesconhecida · 5 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-133Clarification on Sub-AssignmentsDesconhecida · 9 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-134PDP UpdateDesconhecida · 6 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-135DocumentationDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-139SOR not requiredDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-140Update End-Site DefinitionDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-143ASN to CustomerDesconhecida · 2 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-148Leasing of Resources is not AcceptableDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-154Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPsDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
prop-157Temporary IPv4 TransfersDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
unnumbered-experimental-allocations-no-ipv4-reservation-2021Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4Desconhecida · 2 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
Palet pede que a questão controversa da alocação para fins experimentais seja levada à comunidade mais ampla do Policy SIG. Ele não afirma que já exista consenso nem expressa um voto definitivo sobre a regra de alocação. Essa única intervenção sobre o procedimento não demonstra uma mudança de posição.
Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · Palet pede que a questão controversa da alocação para fins experimentais seja levada à comunidade mais ampla do Policy SIG. Ele não afirma que já exista consenso nem expressa um voto definitivo sobre a regra de alocação. Essa única intervenção sobre o procedimento não demonstra uma mudança de posição.
Condições: Pedir que se determine se há consenso é diferente de apresentar evidências de que ele foi alcançado.
11 de jan. de 2022
it is neccesary to have the discussion in a broader community, the Policy SIG.
Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4 · Recovery of unused historical resources
Avaliação: Coerente · Buscar uma deliberação comunitária mais ampla sobre uma proposta e contribuições especializadas da secretaria sobre outra são formas compatíveis de suprir lacunas distintas na base para a decisão. Nenhuma das mensagens atribui à secretaria autoridade para substituir o consenso da comunidade. A comparação sustenta a compatibilidade dos procedimentos, não um mesmo voto sobre o mérito das duas políticas.
unnumbered-recovery-unused-historical-resources-2021Recovery of unused historical resourcesDesconhecida · 2 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
Sobre a recuperação de recursos históricos, Palet solicita contribuições da secretaria, especialmente a respeito de questões jurídicas. Pedir essas informações mantém em aberto a decisão de mérito sobre a recuperação; não significa endossar uma interpretação jurídica específica.
Recovery of unused historical resources
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · Sobre a recuperação de recursos históricos, Palet solicita contribuições da secretaria, especialmente a respeito de questões jurídicas. Pedir essas informações mantém em aberto a decisão de mérito sobre a recuperação; não significa endossar uma interpretação jurídica específica.
Condições: O material fornecido não inclui resposta posterior nem preferência final explícita quanto à política.
11 de jan. de 2022
especially the legal aspects. May be in this case, is not just the chairs but the secretariat who should provide some inputs.
Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4 · Recovery of unused historical resources
Avaliação: Coerente · Buscar uma deliberação comunitária mais ampla sobre uma proposta e contribuições especializadas da secretaria sobre outra são formas compatíveis de suprir lacunas distintas na base para a decisão. Nenhuma das mensagens atribui à secretaria autoridade para substituir o consenso da comunidade. A comparação sustenta a compatibilidade dos procedimentos, não um mesmo voto sobre o mérito das duas políticas.
LAC-2016-4Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end usersApoio com mudanças · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The author accepts clearer old-and-new text and a stronger rationale while deliberately separating the allocation-size question from the two changes being proposed. This one reply shows willingness to refine the proposal, but supplies no sequence from which to assess a reversal or durable consistency.
Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author accepts clearer old-and-new text and a stronger rationale while deliberately separating the allocation-size question from the two changes being proposed. This one reply shows willingness to refine the proposal, but supplies no sequence from which to assess a reversal or durable consistency.
Condições: Support for this limited change does not endorse a separate size change or every later draft.
10 de mar. de 2016
Mi idea en esta propuesta es SOLO tocar los dos puntos indicados.
LAC-2016-5Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocationsApoio · 29 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente
From March 2016 through May 2017 the author seeks an aggregated, realistic IPv6 plan for government and other nontraditional networks. His preferred mechanism evolves: he first argues for differentiated non-ISP treatment, offers an alternative at the community's request, and finally abandons this proposal because the common mechanism serves the same objective with less complexity. The withdrawal is explained rather than an unexplained rejection of the objective.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Avaliação: Coerente · From March 2016 through May 2017 the author seeks an aggregated, realistic IPv6 plan for government and other nontraditional networks. His preferred mechanism evolves: he first argues for differentiated non-ISP treatment, offers an alternative at the community's request, and finally abandons this proposal because the common mechanism serves the same objective with less complexity. The withdrawal is explained rather than an unexplained rejection of the objective.
Condições: The initial willingness to withdraw depended on staff confirming that the existing rule already permitted the case; it was not an actual March withdrawal. · The later report of community consensus is not independent evidence of final ratification or implementation. · Claims about government allocations and regional experience are the author's examples and assertions.
18 de mar. de 2016
Y creo que no es conveniente tener tantas pol?ticas como ?casos?.
17 de ago. de 2016
Mi propuesta pretende aclarar esta situacion, con una categoria nueva diferente de ISP, aunque es muy similar a un ISP.
24 de mai. de 2017
que evitamos con un solo mecanismo para justificar los recursos
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Avaliação: Coerente · The November correction changes the stated horizon from the organization's life expectancy to the allocation's expected longevity. The author acknowledges an overlooked drafting error and explains why the latter better bounds the addressing plan. This is a real correction with an explanation, not evidence that every earlier version already said the same thing.
LAC-2016-7Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocationsApoio · 6 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente
The author presents the common ISP/LIR rule as an explicit alternative, explains its longer-horizon planning benefit, and later favors it over separate categories because it achieves the shared aim more simply. Offering two mutually exclusive community choices is not support for adopting conflicting rules simultaneously.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Avaliação: Coerente · The author presents the common ISP/LIR rule as an explicit alternative, explains its longer-horizon planning benefit, and later favors it over separate categories because it achieves the shared aim more simply. Offering two mutually exclusive community choices is not support for adopting conflicting rules simultaneously.
Condições: This entails a change from preserving the commercial-ISP time limit to accepting a common mechanism; the design preference did evolve. · The source describes community consensus, not proof of all subsequent implementation steps.
3 de out. de 2016
Mi idea es ofrecer AMBAS alternativas para que la comunidad decida.
3 de out. de 2016
Por supuesto que la idea no es que se aprueben las dos, sino una u otra.
24 de mai. de 2017
v?lido para ambos casos.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations
Avaliação: Coerente · The separate-category and common-rule proposals are competing mechanisms for the same planning objective. The author expressly presents them as alternatives, then explains abandoning the more complex category approach after the common rule received community support. The record documents a reasoned change in preferred mechanism rather than simultaneous contradictory commitments.
LAC-2017-1Rectifying the size of initial allocationsApoio · 4 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente
The sequence consistently supports a one-time correction of an inadequate initial IPv6 allocation to avoid renumbering. It preserves the ordinary subsequent-allocation procedure, acknowledges that contiguous space may not remain available, and leaves end-user inclusion open if relevant cases are presented. Encouraging discussion is separate from this substantive advocacy.
Rectifying the size of initial allocations
Avaliação: Coerente · The sequence consistently supports a one-time correction of an inadequate initial IPv6 allocation to avoid renumbering. It preserves the ordinary subsequent-allocation procedure, acknowledges that contiguous space may not remain available, and leaves end-user inclusion open if relevant cases are presented. Encouraging discussion is separate from this substantive advocacy.
Condições: The residential /64 remark is a reductio, not a recommendation to reduce customer assignments. · The /33 example and worldwide adoption fraction are not independently established technical or statistical evidence. · Future contiguous allocations are not guaranteed.
2 de mar. de 2017
No se trata de evitar que haya ?nuevas asignaciones? en el futuro, pero si dar la oportunidad de ?corregir? la primera por una sola vez.
5 de mar. de 2017
ser?a muy sencillo actualizar la propuesta para incluir ese caso.
7 de mar. de 2017
ahora pague por ello el cliente.
Rectifying the size of initial allocations · MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS
Avaliação: Coerente · The initial-correction discussion explicitly leaves end-user inclusion open if cases are raised. The later welcome for an end-user correction mechanism is compatible with that openness and with the repeated concern about avoidable renumbering; it is not a reversal from categorical exclusion of end users.
LAC-2017-7Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.Propõe alternativa · 3 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente
The author repeats a preference for 30 calendar days, finds discretionary chair-adjusted intervals too subjective, and then proposes a broader list-based consensus process. The broader process discussion does not endorse the specific 20-day option or retract the stated 30-day preference within this exchange.
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.
Avaliação: Coerente · The author repeats a preference for 30 calendar days, finds discretionary chair-adjusted intervals too subjective, and then proposes a broader list-based consensus process. The broader process discussion does not endorse the specific 20-day option or retract the stated 30-day preference within this exchange.
Condições: The comparative timing list is supplied by another participant. · The claimed benefits of avoiding meeting delays are advocacy, not measured outcomes.
14 de jun. de 2017
creo que 30 d?as naturales ser?a suficiente y siempre m?s f?cil de contar.
14 de jun. de 2017
Me refuerza en mi punto de vista de 30 d?as.
14 de jun. de 2017
la decisi?n del consenso (igual que en IETF) se toma en la lista, no en el meeting
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. · Simplification of the PDP
Avaliação: Coerente · The 2017 preference for list-based consensus carries into the later PDP redesign and its equal-participation rationale. Details do change: the earlier preference is 30 calendar days, while the later outline gives a four-week last call. The later emphasis on inclusion rather than speed narrows the stated priority without negating the earlier observation that meetings can delay a decision.
LAC-2017-8MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERSPropõe alternativa · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The single contribution welcomes correction of an end user's initial allocation while proposing clearer language about contiguous expansion, unavailable adjacent space, and the choice to renumber earlier. It establishes a conditional design preference, not longitudinal consistency or endorsement of every provision.
MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The single contribution welcomes correction of an end user's initial allocation while proposing clearer language about contiguous expansion, unavailable adjacent space, and the choice to renumber earlier. It establishes a conditional design preference, not longitudinal consistency or endorsement of every provision.
Condições: The suggested wording is a proposal, not evidence that it was incorporated into an adopted text.
3 de ago. de 2017
Me parece buena idea la propuesta, sin embargo, tengo una duda.
3 de ago. de 2017
que si lo desea renumere ahora en lugar de luego
Rectifying the size of initial allocations · MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS
Avaliação: Coerente · The initial-correction discussion explicitly leaves end-user inclusion open if cases are raised. The later welcome for an end-user correction mechanism is compatible with that openness and with the repeated concern about avoidable renumbering; it is not a reversal from categorical exclusion of end users.
Condições: The two proposals address different recipient classes. · The emails do not independently establish the frequency of end-user cases.
LAC-2017-9Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6Apoio · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The author advocates aligning subsequent IPv6 allocation criteria with the revised initial-allocation criteria so earlier recipients are not disadvantaged. Only one contribution is supplied, so persistence or reversal within this proposal cannot be assessed.
Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author advocates aligning subsequent IPv6 allocation criteria with the revised initial-allocation criteria so earlier recipients are not disadvantaged. Only one contribution is supplied, so persistence or reversal within this proposal cannot be assessed.
Condições: The quoted announcement distinguishes consensus from pending board ratification; the author's shorthand about approval does not prove implementation.
7 de ago. de 2017
Mi propuesta simplemente incorpora *el mismo* texto que se aprob? para las distribuciones iniciales en las distribuciones subsiguientes
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6
Avaliação: Coerente · Support for a common initial-allocation rule is followed by advocacy of matching subsequent-allocation criteria, expressly to avoid disadvantaging earlier recipients. These are complementary positions on the same planning issue.
Condições: The comparison concerns the author's rationale, not proof of ratification or deployment.
24 de mai. de 2017
v?lido para ambos casos.
7 de ago. de 2017
dejar?a en desventaja a quien haya obtenido una distribuci?n inicial *antes* de la reciente aprobaci?n del cambio.
LAC-2018-10Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option)Apoio · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
This contribution supports a substantive rather than numerical understanding of consensus and associates that objective with the author's PDP proposal. It does not reproduce all the process provisions or provide a time series of positions on this proposal.
Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option)
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · This contribution supports a substantive rather than numerical understanding of consensus and associates that objective with the author's PDP proposal. It does not reproduce all the process provisions or provide a time series of positions on this proposal.
Condições: The definition quoted from the PDP is attributed material; the author's explicit endorsement is the evidence of his position. · No stance on an unrelated later proposal follows from the discussion.
25 de jul. de 2018
para evitar que se entienda como "mas votos" a favor o "en contra", cuando en realidad quiere decir que no haya objeciones que no sean respondidas.
Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option) · Simplification of the PDP
Avaliação: Coerente · The later explanation that consensus is not a count of votes matches the earlier PDP reform argument for evaluating substantive objections and including list participants. No reversal of that conception of consensus is shown.
Condições: Endorsement of this principle does not establish agreement with every procedural provision.
25 de jul. de 2018
para evitar que se entienda como "mas votos" a favor o "en contra"
14 de mar. de 2018
LAC-2018-11Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end usersApoio · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The author supports removing the IPv4 end-user multihoming requirement and explains that this component was split from a combined proposal after feedback. This single statement cannot show whether the position persisted or changed later.
Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end users
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author supports removing the IPv4 end-user multihoming requirement and explains that this component was split from a combined proposal after feedback. This single statement cannot show whether the position persisted or changed later.
Condições: The alignment with IPv6 is his stated rationale. · Neither the split nor the request for feedback establishes consensus on this component.
13 de ago. de 2018
La LAC-2018-11, simplemente elimina el requisito de multihoming para IPv4 para ser usuario final
Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end users · Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users
Avaliação: Coerente · The author explains dividing the combined end-user proposal into transfer and multihoming components after community feedback. Supporting both as separate proposals is coherent; it does not imply either had been adopted.
Condições: This is an explicitly described change in proposal structure, not an inferred change from a shared subject line.
13 de ago. de 2018
afrontara cada problema con una propuesta especifica y as? lo hice ese mismo d?a.
LAC-2018-12Minor revision to the PDPApoio com mudanças · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The author regards an explicit restart clause as redundant but accepts wording that restarts the eight-week discussion period in every case. Calling it a clarification while accepting it is not opposition, but one reply cannot establish consistency across subsequent revisions.
Minor revision to the PDP
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author regards an explicit restart clause as redundant but accepts wording that restarts the eight-week discussion period in every case. Calling it a clarification while accepting it is not opposition, but one reply cannot establish consistency across subsequent revisions.
Condições: A proposed revision or offered new version is not proof of adoption. · The rule being discussed is a failed-consensus restart, not the length of last call.
14 de set. de 2018
Luego, bajo mi punto de vista, es *redundante* poner que se reinician los plazos.
14 de set. de 2018
En cualquier caso, se reiniciar?a el plazo de debate de 8 semanas.
LAC-2018-13Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for the Policy ListDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2018-14Inter-RIR Transfer PolicyDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2018-4Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policyDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The author supplies a comparison link and explains its colors to facilitate review. The message contains neither the comparison itself nor a substantive sequence of positions, so it cannot support a finding about consistency of the proposed IPv6 corrections.
Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author supplies a comparison link and explains its colors to facilitate review. The message contains neither the comparison itself nor a substantive sequence of positions, so it cannot support a finding about consistency of the proposed IPv6 corrections.
Condições: Authorship and assistance with presentation are not endorsement of every unseen change.
28 de fev. de 2018
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo), y la de la derecha (color verde), como quedar?a con los cambios que propongo.
Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy · Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual
Avaliação: Coerente · Providing a policy diff and later favoring side-by-side comparisons show a compatible preference for making textual changes easier to inspect. That narrow presentation preference supplies no evidence of consistency on the substantive IPv6 or resource-recovery provisions.
Condições: Only the presentation practice is compared here.
28 de fev. de 2018
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo)
12 de jul. de 2019
LAC-2018-5Registration and validation of abuse contactApoio com mudanças · 10 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente
Across the discussion the author continues to seek registered, usable abuse contacts and periodic validation. He accepts clarification of validation triggers, discusses longer intervals and grace periods, and considers splitting disputed components. By September he favors stating the validation objective while leaving the operational procedure to LACNIC. Those are substantive refinements around a persistent objective.
Registration and validation of abuse contact
Avaliação: Coerente · Across the discussion the author continues to seek registered, usable abuse contacts and periodic validation. He accepts clarification of validation triggers, discusses longer intervals and grace periods, and considers splitting disputed components. By September he favors stating the validation objective while leaving the operational procedure to LACNIC. Those are substantive refinements around a persistent objective.
Condições: The final interval and precise consequences of failed validation are not settled by these replies. · General agreement with a suggested revision does not adopt every sanction in the quoted reply. · Predictions of court victories and civil liability remain the author's historical claims, not verified legal conclusions.
8 de mar. de 2018
Totalmente de acuerdo en lo que propones del punto 12.4
13 de ago. de 2018
Que se verifican autom?ticamente cada cierto tiempo, con un proceso automatizado desde LACNIC
26 de set. de 2018
es mejor que el procedimiento lo defina LACNIC.
Registration and validation of abuse contact
Avaliação: Coerente · The objection to automated abuse contacts concerns systems that ignore email and force victims into incompatible forms. The author expressly supports automatic initial reports and automatic or semi-automatic processing that responds. Read together, the broad phrase against automation is qualified by this functional distinction, not a ban on all automation.
LAC-2018-6Simplification of the PDPApoio com mudanças · 7 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente
The author consistently prioritizes participation in consensus by the whole community. His initial list-only design would remove the expedited track, but he subsequently offers to retain forum presentation and the expedited process, or combine list and forum, if remote participants have equal standing. This is a conditional compromise, not abandonment of the objective.
Simplification of the PDP
Avaliação: Coerente · The author consistently prioritizes participation in consensus by the whole community. His initial list-only design would remove the expedited track, but he subsequently offers to retain forum presentation and the expedited process, or combine list and forum, if remote participants have equal standing. This is a conditional compromise, not abandonment of the objective.
Condições: The offered changes are not evidence that a revised text was actually published or approved. · Replacing the word discriminatory with exclusionary softens the description without removing the stated objection. · The illustrative participation percentages and accounts of prior forums are not independently verified measurements.
14 de mar. de 2018
El objetivo es que el consenso se alcance en la lista, y no en el foro
14 de mar. de 2018
y entonces mantener el proceso expeditivo
15 de mar. de 2018
hacer que el consenso sea de lista+foro en lugar de solo lista o solo foro
Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process. · Simplification of the PDP
Avaliação: Coerente · The 2017 preference for list-based consensus carries into the later PDP redesign and its equal-participation rationale. Details do change: the earlier preference is 30 calendar days, while the later outline gives a four-week last call. The later emphasis on inclusion rather than speed narrows the stated priority without negating the earlier observation that meetings can delay a decision.
LAC-2018-7Clarifications of Sub-AssignmentsApoio · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The author seeks an exception for temporary addressing of guests, employees or students while retaining the distinction from permanent connectivity service. He explicitly asks whether to cap that exception at a /64 or leave size open. Presenting these alternatives does not choose either one, and there is no later position here to compare.
Clarifications of Sub-Assignments
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author seeks an exception for temporary addressing of guests, employees or students while retaining the distinction from permanent connectivity service. He explicitly asks whether to cap that exception at a /64 or leave size open. Presenting these alternatives does not choose either one, and there is no later position here to compare.
Condições: Other regions are contextual references, not evidence that a particular LACNIC alternative was adopted.
13 de ago. de 2018
La diferencia es limitar esto a un m?ximo de un /64, o dejarlo abierto.
Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Clarifications of Sub-Assignments
Avaliação: Coerente · The earlier end-user/LIR distinction concerns assignment to separate institutions in a national network. The later sub-assignment clarification explicitly distinguishes temporary guest or employee connectivity from permanent service. These scopes can coexist; the later temporary-use exception does not establish that permanent distribution to other organizations was reclassified as end-user use.
Condições: The imprecise university wording in the earlier example remains an uncertainty, not a basis for a categorical identity rule. · The later message leaves the /64 size alternative undecided.
31 de mar. de 2016
LAC-2018-8Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End UsersApoio · 2 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente
The May contribution defends avoiding disruptive end-user renumbering; the August explanation preserves that objective while describing the simplified transfer component after the multihoming question was separated. The split changes the packaging, not the stated purpose of enabling the existing user to keep its addressing.
Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users
Avaliação: Coerente · The May contribution defends avoiding disruptive end-user renumbering; the August explanation preserves that objective while describing the simplified transfer component after the multihoming question was separated. The split changes the packaging, not the stated purpose of enabling the existing user to keep its addressing.
Condições: The quoted participant's uncertainty is not the author's own neutral position. · An ISP proposal's reported consensus does not establish consensus for the end-user proposal.
22 de mai. de 2018
un end-user puede tener requisitos que le impiden renumerar
13 de ago. de 2018
un ISP "ceda" con un sistema simplificado de transferencias, el direccionamiento al usuario final que lo usa.
Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users · Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs
Avaliação: Coerente · Both the ISP and end-user discussions pursue retention of existing addressing through an agreed transfer to avoid renumbering. The author separates the recipient classes while using the same operational rationale; support in one discussion is not evidence of consensus in the other.
Condições: The effect on routing remains a debated claim.
22 de mai. de 2018
LAC-2018-9Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPsApoio com mudanças · 7 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente
The author repeatedly defends voluntary transfer of the same addressing to avoid renumbering and argues that the routing and cost consequences are comparable to ordinary transfers. The later offer to replace ceder with transferir makes his intended mechanism explicit rather than reversing it.
Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs
Avaliação: Coerente · The author repeatedly defends voluntary transfer of the same addressing to avoid renumbering and argues that the routing and cost consequences are comparable to ordinary transfers. The later offer to replace ceder with transferir makes his intended mechanism explicit rather than reversing it.
Condições: His routing-equivalence argument is contested advocacy, not an independently measured network outcome. · The half-joking routing-table remark is not a policy commitment; the rhetorical question about abolishing transfers is not a repeal proposal. · The participating organizations must agree and an authorized representative must approve; no unilateral right is asserted.
3 de abr. de 2018
tiene que haber acuerdo entre ambas partes.
3 de mai. de 2018
pero resuelve el problema de evitar la renumeraci?n.
30 de mai. de 2018
poner transferir en lugar de ceder.
Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users · Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs
Avaliação: Coerente · Both the ISP and end-user discussions pursue retention of existing addressing through an agreed transfer to avoid renumbering. The author separates the recipient classes while using the same operational rationale; support in one discussion is not evidence of consensus in the other.
LAC-2019-2IPv4 Mergers, Acquisitions, Reorganizations and RelocationsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2019-3IPv6 Mergers, Acquisitions, Reorganizations and RelocationsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2019-4ASN Mergers, Acquisitions, Reorganizations and RelocationsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2019-5Resource Hijacking is a Policy ViolationDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2019-6Resources Are Assigned in a Unique and Exclusive CapacityDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2019-7PDP Chair Election ProcedureDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The author acknowledges missing a response deadline and agrees that further versions may be needed. This procedural exchange does not establish support for every chair-election provision, a substantive reversal, or a declaration of consensus.
PDP Chair Election Procedure
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author acknowledges missing a response deadline and agrees that further versions may be needed. This procedural exchange does not establish support for every chair-election provision, a substantive reversal, or a declaration of consensus.
Condições: A preference for immediate replies is not a position on each election rule. · A shared email subject does not by itself attribute a stance on another proposal.
24 de jun. de 2019
Mi respuesta no negaba una versi?n 2 o 3 o las que hagan falta
LAC-2019-9Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the ManualDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
The author favors a side-by-side comparison tool, downloadable text and PDF, and room for exceptional formats. This is agreement about how to discuss a proposal, not evidence of support or opposition to its resource-recovery provisions or a later policy outcome.
Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual
Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author favors a side-by-side comparison tool, downloadable text and PDF, and room for exceptional formats. This is agreement about how to discuss a proposal, not evidence of support or opposition to its resource-recovery provisions or a later policy outcome.
Condições: No substantive recovery-rule consistency judgment can be inferred from agreement with the tooling suggestion.
12 de jul. de 2019
Yo desde luego votar?a por un sistema que muestre ?lado a lado? en la web
Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy · Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual
Avaliação: Coerente · Providing a policy diff and later favoring side-by-side comparisons show a compatible preference for making textual changes easier to inspect. That narrow presentation preference supplies no evidence of consistency on the substantive IPv6 or resource-recovery provisions.
Condições: Only the presentation practice is compared here.
28 de fev. de 2018
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo)
12 de jul. de 2019
LAC-2020-3Impact Analysis Is MandatoryDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2020-4Adjustment to the Functions of the Board of DirectorsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2020-6Miscellaneous Modifications to the PDPDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2021-2Non-Competition Between ProposalsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2021-3PDP Chair ElectionDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2021-4Permission to Transfer and Non-Return of ResourcesDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2021-5Update End-User and End-Site DefinitionsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2022-2Clarification: The lease of resources is not allowed under the policies in forceDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2022-4PDP Chair ElectionsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2023-1Clarify Definition of ConsensusDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2023-7Temporary TransfersDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2024-1Introducing Proposals to the PDPDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2025-1Distribution of Resources to Natural PersonsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
LAC-2025-4Priority on the IPv4 Waiting List for Those Who Have Already Deployed IPv6Desconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
2007-08Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 ResourcesDesconhecida · 4 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
2011-04Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial AllocationDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
2018-02Assignment Clarification in IPv6 PolicyDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
2018-04PDP ClarificationDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada
2024-02IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 and extension to /28Desconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão
Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

Participação em políticas RIR

4RIRs com participação

71Políticas com participação

141Mensagens de política

11 de jul. de 2006Primeira participação

21 de jan. de 2022Última participação

afpol-v60604Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-OrganizationsDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência

The author acknowledges that the proposal copied text from his RIPE draft and says to replace RIPE NCC with AFRINIC. That is a specific clarification of intended regional applicability, not an explicit vote on all provisions and not evidence of a changed position over time.

Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author acknowledges that the proposal copied text from his RIPE draft and says to replace RIPE NCC with AFRINIC. That is a specific clarification of intended regional applicability, not an explicit vote on all provisions and not evidence of a changed position over time.

Condições: The clarification does not by itself verify that the published draft was amended or adopted.

11 de jul. de 2006
Is a typo, replace RIPE NCC with AfriNIC and you're done.

11 de jul. de 2006
This happened in the policy because the text was taken from my proposal to RIPE NCC and we didn't reviewed accurately all the text.

Provider-Independent (PI) IPv6 Assignments for End-User-Organizations · IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites | AFPUB-2007-v6-001

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · Correcting the region named in a 2006 eligibility clause and arguing for justified organizational eligibility in a distinct 2007 proposal are compatible but not directly comparable acts. The source record does not support either a contradiction claim or a strong longitudinal-consistency claim across the two proposals.

Condições: The proposals have separate source identities and must not be merged solely because both concern IPv6 PI. · No position is inferred from text quoted from another author.

11 de jul. de 2006
Is a typo, replace RIPE NCC with AfriNIC and you're done.

19 de mar. de 2007
In principle our policies are not made for individuals accessing those resources, unless clearly justified (and in this case I think a good justification is to be an organization).

AFPUB-2007-V6-001IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites | AFPUB-2007-v6-001Apoio com mudanças · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência

The author treats organizational use as a good justification for direct resources and warns that widespread individual assignments could impose routing costs even when address space itself is sufficient. The express qualification for justified cases prevents reading this as an absolute ban on every individual assignment. One message cannot establish whether that preference persisted or changed.

IPv6 Provider Independent (PI) Assignment for End-Sites | AFPUB-2007-v6-001

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author treats organizational use as a good justification for direct resources and warns that widespread individual assignments could impose routing costs even when address space itself is sufficient. The express qualification for justified cases prevents reading this as an absolute ban on every individual assignment. One message cannot establish whether that preference persisted or changed.

Condições: The population and router-cost figures are illustrative assertions by the author, not verified measurements. · This concerns IPv6 PI assignment eligibility, not a stance on the separately documented AFRINIC policy-development-process proposal. · The earlier July 2006 clarification is now linked to the separately recovered afpol-v60604 proposal; it is not an earlier version of this verified policy corpus.

19 de mar. de 2007
In principle our policies are not made for individuals accessing those resources, unless clearly justified (and in this case I think a good justification is to be an organization).

19 de mar. de 2007
Is not only about the addressing space, which probably could perfectly cope with that for 100% of the world population if using /48, but what about the routing slots ?

19 de mar. de 2007
We need a balance here.

AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT07AFPUB-2018-GEN-001-DRAFT07Desconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

AFPUB-2026-GEN-002-DRAFT02Policy Compliance DashboardDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

AFPUB-2026-GEN-003-DRAFT01PPM DatesDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

AFPUB-2026-IPv4-001-DRAFT02IPv4 Soft LandingDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT02Amendment of UtilisationDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

AFPUB-2026-v6-001-DRAFT03IPv6 in Soft LandingDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-121Updating “Initial IPv6 allocation” policyDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-122Updating “Subsequent IPv6 allocation” policyDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-124Clarification on Sub-AssignmentsDesconhecida · 9 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-125Validation of “abuse-mailbox” and other IRT emailsDesconhecida · 2 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-126PDP UpdateDesconhecida · 6 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-128Multihoming not required for ASNDesconhecida · 2 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-130Modification of transfer policiesDesconhecida · 8 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-131Editorial changes in IPv6 PolicyDesconhecida · 5 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-133Clarification on Sub-AssignmentsDesconhecida · 9 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-134PDP UpdateDesconhecida · 6 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-135DocumentationDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-139SOR not requiredDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-140Update End-Site DefinitionDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-143ASN to CustomerDesconhecida · 2 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-148Leasing of Resources is not AcceptableDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-154Resizing of IPv4 assignment for the IXPsDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

prop-157Temporary IPv4 TransfersDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

unnumbered-experimental-allocations-no-ipv4-reservation-2021Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4Desconhecida · 2 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência

Palet pede que a questão controversa da alocação para fins experimentais seja levada à comunidade mais ampla do Policy SIG. Ele não afirma que já exista consenso nem expressa um voto definitivo sobre a regra de alocação. Essa única intervenção sobre o procedimento não demonstra uma mudança de posição.

Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · Palet pede que a questão controversa da alocação para fins experimentais seja levada à comunidade mais ampla do Policy SIG. Ele não afirma que já exista consenso nem expressa um voto definitivo sobre a regra de alocação. Essa única intervenção sobre o procedimento não demonstra uma mudança de posição.

Condições: Pedir que se determine se há consenso é diferente de apresentar evidências de que ele foi alcançado.

11 de jan. de 2022
it is neccesary to have the discussion in a broader community, the Policy SIG.

Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4 · Recovery of unused historical resources

Avaliação: Coerente · Buscar uma deliberação comunitária mais ampla sobre uma proposta e contribuições especializadas da secretaria sobre outra são formas compatíveis de suprir lacunas distintas na base para a decisão. Nenhuma das mensagens atribui à secretaria autoridade para substituir o consenso da comunidade. A comparação sustenta a compatibilidade dos procedimentos, não um mesmo voto sobre o mérito das duas políticas.

unnumbered-recovery-unused-historical-resources-2021Recovery of unused historical resourcesDesconhecida · 2 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência

Sobre a recuperação de recursos históricos, Palet solicita contribuições da secretaria, especialmente a respeito de questões jurídicas. Pedir essas informações mantém em aberto a decisão de mérito sobre a recuperação; não significa endossar uma interpretação jurídica específica.

Recovery of unused historical resources

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · Sobre a recuperação de recursos históricos, Palet solicita contribuições da secretaria, especialmente a respeito de questões jurídicas. Pedir essas informações mantém em aberto a decisão de mérito sobre a recuperação; não significa endossar uma interpretação jurídica específica.

Condições: O material fornecido não inclui resposta posterior nem preferência final explícita quanto à política.

11 de jan. de 2022
especially the legal aspects. May be in this case, is not just the chairs but the secretariat who should provide some inputs.

Experimental Allocations – no reservation for IPv4 · Recovery of unused historical resources

LAC-2016-4Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end usersApoio com mudanças · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência

The author accepts clearer old-and-new text and a stronger rationale while deliberately separating the allocation-size question from the two changes being proposed. This one reply shows willingness to refine the proposal, but supplies no sequence from which to assess a reversal or durable consistency.

Modify direct IPv6 address assignments to end users

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author accepts clearer old-and-new text and a stronger rationale while deliberately separating the allocation-size question from the two changes being proposed. This one reply shows willingness to refine the proposal, but supplies no sequence from which to assess a reversal or durable consistency.

Condições: Support for this limited change does not endorse a separate size change or every later draft.

10 de mar. de 2016
Mi idea en esta propuesta es SOLO tocar los dos puntos indicados.

LAC-2016-5Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocationsApoio · 29 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente

From March 2016 through May 2017 the author seeks an aggregated, realistic IPv6 plan for government and other nontraditional networks. His preferred mechanism evolves: he first argues for differentiated non-ISP treatment, offers an alternative at the community's request, and finally abandons this proposal because the common mechanism serves the same objective with less complexity. The withdrawal is explained rather than an unexplained rejection of the objective.

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Avaliação: Coerente · From March 2016 through May 2017 the author seeks an aggregated, realistic IPv6 plan for government and other nontraditional networks. His preferred mechanism evolves: he first argues for differentiated non-ISP treatment, offers an alternative at the community's request, and finally abandons this proposal because the common mechanism serves the same objective with less complexity. The withdrawal is explained rather than an unexplained rejection of the objective.

Condições: The initial willingness to withdraw depended on staff confirming that the existing rule already permitted the case; it was not an actual March withdrawal. · The later report of community consensus is not independent evidence of final ratification or implementation. · Claims about government allocations and regional experience are the author's examples and assertions.

18 de mar. de 2016
Y creo que no es conveniente tener tantas pol?ticas como ?casos?.

17 de ago. de 2016
Mi propuesta pretende aclarar esta situacion, con una categoria nueva diferente de ISP, aunque es muy similar a un ISP.

24 de mai. de 2017
que evitamos con un solo mecanismo para justificar los recursos

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Avaliação: Coerente · The November correction changes the stated horizon from the organization's life expectancy to the allocation's expected longevity. The author acknowledges an overlooked drafting error and explains why the latter better bounds the addressing plan. This is a real correction with an explanation, not evidence that every earlier version already said the same thing.

LAC-2016-7Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocationsApoio · 6 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente

The author presents the common ISP/LIR rule as an explicit alternative, explains its longer-horizon planning benefit, and later favors it over separate categories because it achieves the shared aim more simply. Offering two mutually exclusive community choices is not support for adopting conflicting rules simultaneously.

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Avaliação: Coerente · The author presents the common ISP/LIR rule as an explicit alternative, explains its longer-horizon planning benefit, and later favors it over separate categories because it achieves the shared aim more simply. Offering two mutually exclusive community choices is not support for adopting conflicting rules simultaneously.

Condições: This entails a change from preserving the commercial-ISP time limit to accepting a common mechanism; the design preference did evolve. · The source describes community consensus, not proof of all subsequent implementation steps.

3 de out. de 2016
Mi idea es ofrecer AMBAS alternativas para que la comunidad decida.

3 de out. de 2016
Por supuesto que la idea no es que se aprueben las dos, sino una u otra.

24 de mai. de 2017
v?lido para ambos casos.

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

Avaliação: Coerente · The separate-category and common-rule proposals are competing mechanisms for the same planning objective. The author expressly presents them as alternatives, then explains abandoning the more complex category approach after the common rule received community support. The record documents a reasoned change in preferred mechanism rather than simultaneous contradictory commitments.

LAC-2017-1Rectifying the size of initial allocationsApoio · 4 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente

The sequence consistently supports a one-time correction of an inadequate initial IPv6 allocation to avoid renumbering. It preserves the ordinary subsequent-allocation procedure, acknowledges that contiguous space may not remain available, and leaves end-user inclusion open if relevant cases are presented. Encouraging discussion is separate from this substantive advocacy.

Rectifying the size of initial allocations

Avaliação: Coerente · The sequence consistently supports a one-time correction of an inadequate initial IPv6 allocation to avoid renumbering. It preserves the ordinary subsequent-allocation procedure, acknowledges that contiguous space may not remain available, and leaves end-user inclusion open if relevant cases are presented. Encouraging discussion is separate from this substantive advocacy.

Condições: The residential /64 remark is a reductio, not a recommendation to reduce customer assignments. · The /33 example and worldwide adoption fraction are not independently established technical or statistical evidence. · Future contiguous allocations are not guaranteed.

2 de mar. de 2017
No se trata de evitar que haya ?nuevas asignaciones? en el futuro, pero si dar la oportunidad de ?corregir? la primera por una sola vez.

5 de mar. de 2017
ser?a muy sencillo actualizar la propuesta para incluir ese caso.

7 de mar. de 2017
ahora pague por ello el cliente.

Rectifying the size of initial allocations · MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS

Avaliação: Coerente · The initial-correction discussion explicitly leaves end-user inclusion open if cases are raised. The later welcome for an end-user correction mechanism is compatible with that openness and with the repeated concern about avoidable renumbering; it is not a reversal from categorical exclusion of end users.

LAC-2017-7Reducing the last-call-for-comments period in LACNIC's Policy Development Process.Propõe alternativa · 3 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente

The author repeats a preference for 30 calendar days, finds discretionary chair-adjusted intervals too subjective, and then proposes a broader list-based consensus process. The broader process discussion does not endorse the specific 20-day option or retract the stated 30-day preference within this exchange.

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

Avaliação: Coerente · The author repeats a preference for 30 calendar days, finds discretionary chair-adjusted intervals too subjective, and then proposes a broader list-based consensus process. The broader process discussion does not endorse the specific 20-day option or retract the stated 30-day preference within this exchange.

Condições: The comparative timing list is supplied by another participant. · The claimed benefits of avoiding meeting delays are advocacy, not measured outcomes.

14 de jun. de 2017
creo que 30 d?as naturales ser?a suficiente y siempre m?s f?cil de contar.

14 de jun. de 2017
Me refuerza en mi punto de vista de 30 d?as.

14 de jun. de 2017
la decisi?n del consenso (igual que en IETF) se toma en la lista, no en el meeting

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

Avaliação: Coerente · The 2017 preference for list-based consensus carries into the later PDP redesign and its equal-participation rationale. Details do change: the earlier preference is 30 calendar days, while the later outline gives a four-week last call. The later emphasis on inclusion rather than speed narrows the stated priority without negating the earlier observation that meetings can delay a decision.

LAC-2017-8MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERSPropõe alternativa · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência

The single contribution welcomes correction of an end user's initial allocation while proposing clearer language about contiguous expansion, unavailable adjacent space, and the choice to renumber earlier. It establishes a conditional design preference, not longitudinal consistency or endorsement of every provision.

MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The single contribution welcomes correction of an end user's initial allocation while proposing clearer language about contiguous expansion, unavailable adjacent space, and the choice to renumber earlier. It establishes a conditional design preference, not longitudinal consistency or endorsement of every provision.

Condições: The suggested wording is a proposal, not evidence that it was incorporated into an adopted text.

3 de ago. de 2017
Me parece buena idea la propuesta, sin embargo, tengo una duda.

3 de ago. de 2017
que si lo desea renumere ahora en lugar de luego

Rectifying the size of initial allocations · MODIFYING INITIAL IPv6 ALLOCATIONS TO END USERS

Condições: The two proposals address different recipient classes. · The emails do not independently establish the frequency of end-user cases.

LAC-2017-9Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6Apoio · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência

The author advocates aligning subsequent IPv6 allocation criteria with the revised initial-allocation criteria so earlier recipients are not disadvantaged. Only one contribution is supplied, so persistence or reversal within this proposal cannot be assessed.

Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author advocates aligning subsequent IPv6 allocation criteria with the revised initial-allocation criteria so earlier recipients are not disadvantaged. Only one contribution is supplied, so persistence or reversal within this proposal cannot be assessed.

Condições: The quoted announcement distinguishes consensus from pending board ratification; the author's shorthand about approval does not prove implementation.

7 de ago. de 2017
Mi propuesta simplemente incorpora *el mismo* texto que se aprob? para las distribuciones iniciales en las distribuciones subsiguientes

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Modifying "Subsequent Allocation" for IPv6

Avaliação: Coerente · Support for a common initial-allocation rule is followed by advocacy of matching subsequent-allocation criteria, expressly to avoid disadvantaging earlier recipients. These are complementary positions on the same planning issue.

Condições: The comparison concerns the author's rationale, not proof of ratification or deployment.

24 de mai. de 2017
v?lido para ambos casos.

7 de ago. de 2017
dejar?a en desventaja a quien haya obtenido una distribuci?n inicial *antes* de la reciente aprobaci?n del cambio.

LAC-2018-10Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option)Apoio · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência

This contribution supports a substantive rather than numerical understanding of consensus and associates that objective with the author's PDP proposal. It does not reproduce all the process provisions or provide a time series of positions on this proposal.

Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option)

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · This contribution supports a substantive rather than numerical understanding of consensus and associates that objective with the author's PDP proposal. It does not reproduce all the process provisions or provide a time series of positions on this proposal.

Condições: The definition quoted from the PDP is attributed material; the author's explicit endorsement is the evidence of his position. · No stance on an unrelated later proposal follows from the discussion.

25 de jul. de 2018
para evitar que se entienda como "mas votos" a favor o "en contra", cuando en realidad quiere decir que no haya objeciones que no sean respondidas.

Simplifying the PDP (Mailing List + Forum Option) · Simplification of the PDP

Avaliação: Coerente · The later explanation that consensus is not a count of votes matches the earlier PDP reform argument for evaluating substantive objections and including list participants. No reversal of that conception of consensus is shown.

Condições: Endorsement of this principle does not establish agreement with every procedural provision.

25 de jul. de 2018
para evitar que se entienda como "mas votos" a favor o "en contra"

14 de mar. de 2018

LAC-2018-11Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end usersApoio · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência

The author supports removing the IPv4 end-user multihoming requirement and explains that this component was split from a combined proposal after feedback. This single statement cannot show whether the position persisted or changed later.

Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end users

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author supports removing the IPv4 end-user multihoming requirement and explains that this component was split from a combined proposal after feedback. This single statement cannot show whether the position persisted or changed later.

Condições: The alignment with IPv6 is his stated rationale. · Neither the split nor the request for feedback establishes consensus on this component.

13 de ago. de 2018
La LAC-2018-11, simplemente elimina el requisito de multihoming para IPv4 para ser usuario final

Remove the reference to an applicant's multihomed status from the policy on IPv4 assignments to end users · Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users

Avaliação: Coerente · The author explains dividing the combined end-user proposal into transfer and multihoming components after community feedback. Supporting both as separate proposals is coherent; it does not imply either had been adopted.

Condições: This is an explicitly described change in proposal structure, not an inferred change from a shared subject line.

13 de ago. de 2018
afrontara cada problema con una propuesta especifica y as? lo hice ese mismo d?a.

LAC-2018-12Minor revision to the PDPApoio com mudanças · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência

The author regards an explicit restart clause as redundant but accepts wording that restarts the eight-week discussion period in every case. Calling it a clarification while accepting it is not opposition, but one reply cannot establish consistency across subsequent revisions.

Minor revision to the PDP

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author regards an explicit restart clause as redundant but accepts wording that restarts the eight-week discussion period in every case. Calling it a clarification while accepting it is not opposition, but one reply cannot establish consistency across subsequent revisions.

Condições: A proposed revision or offered new version is not proof of adoption. · The rule being discussed is a failed-consensus restart, not the length of last call.

14 de set. de 2018
Luego, bajo mi punto de vista, es *redundante* poner que se reinician los plazos.

14 de set. de 2018
En cualquier caso, se reiniciar?a el plazo de debate de 8 semanas.

LAC-2018-13Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for the Policy ListDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2018-14Inter-RIR Transfer PolicyDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2018-4Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policyDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência

The author supplies a comparison link and explains its colors to facilitate review. The message contains neither the comparison itself nor a substantive sequence of positions, so it cannot support a finding about consistency of the proposed IPv6 corrections.

Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author supplies a comparison link and explains its colors to facilitate review. The message contains neither the comparison itself nor a substantive sequence of positions, so it cannot support a finding about consistency of the proposed IPv6 corrections.

Condições: Authorship and assistance with presentation are not endorsement of every unseen change.

28 de fev. de 2018
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo), y la de la derecha (color verde), como quedar?a con los cambios que propongo.

Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy · Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual

Avaliação: Coerente · Providing a policy diff and later favoring side-by-side comparisons show a compatible preference for making textual changes easier to inspect. That narrow presentation preference supplies no evidence of consistency on the substantive IPv6 or resource-recovery provisions.

Condições: Only the presentation practice is compared here.

28 de fev. de 2018
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo)

12 de jul. de 2019

LAC-2018-5Registration and validation of abuse contactApoio com mudanças · 10 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente

Across the discussion the author continues to seek registered, usable abuse contacts and periodic validation. He accepts clarification of validation triggers, discusses longer intervals and grace periods, and considers splitting disputed components. By September he favors stating the validation objective while leaving the operational procedure to LACNIC. Those are substantive refinements around a persistent objective.

Registration and validation of abuse contact

Avaliação: Coerente · Across the discussion the author continues to seek registered, usable abuse contacts and periodic validation. He accepts clarification of validation triggers, discusses longer intervals and grace periods, and considers splitting disputed components. By September he favors stating the validation objective while leaving the operational procedure to LACNIC. Those are substantive refinements around a persistent objective.

Condições: The final interval and precise consequences of failed validation are not settled by these replies. · General agreement with a suggested revision does not adopt every sanction in the quoted reply. · Predictions of court victories and civil liability remain the author's historical claims, not verified legal conclusions.

8 de mar. de 2018
Totalmente de acuerdo en lo que propones del punto 12.4

13 de ago. de 2018
Que se verifican autom?ticamente cada cierto tiempo, con un proceso automatizado desde LACNIC

26 de set. de 2018
es mejor que el procedimiento lo defina LACNIC.

Registration and validation of abuse contact

Avaliação: Coerente · The objection to automated abuse contacts concerns systems that ignore email and force victims into incompatible forms. The author expressly supports automatic initial reports and automatic or semi-automatic processing that responds. Read together, the broad phrase against automation is qualified by this functional distinction, not a ban on all automation.

LAC-2018-6Simplification of the PDPApoio com mudanças · 7 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente

The author consistently prioritizes participation in consensus by the whole community. His initial list-only design would remove the expedited track, but he subsequently offers to retain forum presentation and the expedited process, or combine list and forum, if remote participants have equal standing. This is a conditional compromise, not abandonment of the objective.

Simplification of the PDP

Avaliação: Coerente · The author consistently prioritizes participation in consensus by the whole community. His initial list-only design would remove the expedited track, but he subsequently offers to retain forum presentation and the expedited process, or combine list and forum, if remote participants have equal standing. This is a conditional compromise, not abandonment of the objective.

Condições: The offered changes are not evidence that a revised text was actually published or approved. · Replacing the word discriminatory with exclusionary softens the description without removing the stated objection. · The illustrative participation percentages and accounts of prior forums are not independently verified measurements.

14 de mar. de 2018
El objetivo es que el consenso se alcance en la lista, y no en el foro

14 de mar. de 2018
y entonces mantener el proceso expeditivo

15 de mar. de 2018
hacer que el consenso sea de lista+foro en lugar de solo lista o solo foro

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

LAC-2018-7Clarifications of Sub-AssignmentsApoio · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência

The author seeks an exception for temporary addressing of guests, employees or students while retaining the distinction from permanent connectivity service. He explicitly asks whether to cap that exception at a /64 or leave size open. Presenting these alternatives does not choose either one, and there is no later position here to compare.

Clarifications of Sub-Assignments

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author seeks an exception for temporary addressing of guests, employees or students while retaining the distinction from permanent connectivity service. He explicitly asks whether to cap that exception at a /64 or leave size open. Presenting these alternatives does not choose either one, and there is no later position here to compare.

Condições: Other regions are contextual references, not evidence that a particular LACNIC alternative was adopted.

13 de ago. de 2018
La diferencia es limitar esto a un m?ximo de un /64, o dejarlo abierto.

Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations · Clarifications of Sub-Assignments

Avaliação: Coerente · The earlier end-user/LIR distinction concerns assignment to separate institutions in a national network. The later sub-assignment clarification explicitly distinguishes temporary guest or employee connectivity from permanent service. These scopes can coexist; the later temporary-use exception does not establish that permanent distribution to other organizations was reclassified as end-user use.

Condições: The imprecise university wording in the earlier example remains an uncertainty, not a basis for a categorical identity rule. · The later message leaves the /64 size alternative undecided.

31 de mar. de 2016

LAC-2018-8Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End UsersApoio · 2 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente

The May contribution defends avoiding disruptive end-user renumbering; the August explanation preserves that objective while describing the simplified transfer component after the multihoming question was separated. The split changes the packaging, not the stated purpose of enabling the existing user to keep its addressing.

Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users

Avaliação: Coerente · The May contribution defends avoiding disruptive end-user renumbering; the August explanation preserves that objective while describing the simplified transfer component after the multihoming question was separated. The split changes the packaging, not the stated purpose of enabling the existing user to keep its addressing.

Condições: The quoted participant's uncertainty is not the author's own neutral position. · An ISP proposal's reported consensus does not establish consensus for the end-user proposal.

22 de mai. de 2018
un end-user puede tener requisitos que le impiden renumerar

13 de ago. de 2018
un ISP "ceda" con un sistema simplificado de transferencias, el direccionamiento al usuario final que lo usa.

Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users · Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs

Avaliação: Coerente · Both the ISP and end-user discussions pursue retention of existing addressing through an agreed transfer to avoid renumbering. The author separates the recipient classes while using the same operational rationale; support in one discussion is not evidence of consensus in the other.

Condições: The effect on routing remains a debated claim.

22 de mai. de 2018

LAC-2018-9Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPsApoio com mudanças · 7 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Coerente

The author repeatedly defends voluntary transfer of the same addressing to avoid renumbering and argues that the routing and cost consequences are comparable to ordinary transfers. The later offer to replace ceder with transferir makes his intended mechanism explicit rather than reversing it.

Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs

Avaliação: Coerente · The author repeatedly defends voluntary transfer of the same addressing to avoid renumbering and argues that the routing and cost consequences are comparable to ordinary transfers. The later offer to replace ceder with transferir makes his intended mechanism explicit rather than reversing it.

Condições: His routing-equivalence argument is contested advocacy, not an independently measured network outcome. · The half-joking routing-table remark is not a policy commitment; the rhetorical question about abolishing transfers is not a repeal proposal. · The participating organizations must agree and an authorized representative must approve; no unilateral right is asserted.

3 de abr. de 2018
tiene que haber acuerdo entre ambas partes.

3 de mai. de 2018
pero resuelve el problema de evitar la renumeraci?n.

30 de mai. de 2018
poner transferir en lugar de ceder.

Update to the Policy on IPv4 Assignments to End Users · Update to the Policy on Initial IPv4 Allocations to ISPs

LAC-2019-2IPv4 Mergers, Acquisitions, Reorganizations and RelocationsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2019-3IPv6 Mergers, Acquisitions, Reorganizations and RelocationsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2019-4ASN Mergers, Acquisitions, Reorganizations and RelocationsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2019-5Resource Hijacking is a Policy ViolationDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2019-6Resources Are Assigned in a Unique and Exclusive CapacityDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2019-7PDP Chair Election ProcedureDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência

The author acknowledges missing a response deadline and agrees that further versions may be needed. This procedural exchange does not establish support for every chair-election provision, a substantive reversal, or a declaration of consensus.

PDP Chair Election Procedure

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author acknowledges missing a response deadline and agrees that further versions may be needed. This procedural exchange does not establish support for every chair-election provision, a substantive reversal, or a declaration of consensus.

Condições: A preference for immediate replies is not a position on each election rule. · A shared email subject does not by itself attribute a stance on another proposal.

24 de jun. de 2019
Mi respuesta no negaba una versi?n 2 o 3 o las que hagan falta

LAC-2019-9Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the ManualDesconhecida · 1 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência

The author favors a side-by-side comparison tool, downloadable text and PDF, and room for exceptional formats. This is agreement about how to discuss a proposal, not evidence of support or opposition to its resource-recovery provisions or a later policy outcome.

Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual

Avaliação: Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência · The author favors a side-by-side comparison tool, downloadable text and PDF, and room for exceptional formats. This is agreement about how to discuss a proposal, not evidence of support or opposition to its resource-recovery provisions or a later policy outcome.

Condições: No substantive recovery-rule consistency judgment can be inferred from agreement with the tooling suggestion.

12 de jul. de 2019
Yo desde luego votar?a por un sistema que muestre ?lado a lado? en la web

Review and correction of errors in the IPv6 policy · Update to “Resource Recovery and Return” and consistency with the rest of the Manual

Condições: Only the presentation practice is compared here.

28 de fev. de 2018
La columna de la izquierda es el texto de la pol?tica actual (color rojo)

12 de jul. de 2019

LAC-2020-3Impact Analysis Is MandatoryDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2020-4Adjustment to the Functions of the Board of DirectorsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2020-6Miscellaneous Modifications to the PDPDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2021-2Non-Competition Between ProposalsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2021-3PDP Chair ElectionDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2021-4Permission to Transfer and Non-Return of ResourcesDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2021-5Update End-User and End-Site DefinitionsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2022-2Clarification: The lease of resources is not allowed under the policies in forceDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2022-4PDP Chair ElectionsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2023-1Clarify Definition of ConsensusDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2023-7Temporary TransfersDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2024-1Introducing Proposals to the PDPDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2025-1Distribution of Resources to Natural PersonsDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

LAC-2025-4Priority on the IPv4 Waiting List for Those Who Have Already Deployed IPv6Desconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

2007-08Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 ResourcesDesconhecida · 4 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

2011-04Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial AllocationDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

2018-02Assignment Clarification in IPv6 PolicyDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

2018-04PDP ClarificationDesconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

2024-02IPv6 Initial Allocations /28 and extension to /28Desconhecida · 0 Mensagens de discussão

Coerência do ponto de vista: Nenhuma posição explícita declarada