BTW.Media
Edição diáriaInteligência estratégica da internet
EntrarRegistrar

LACNIC · Monitoramento de RIR

Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) for the Policy List

Comece aqui pelo registro de cada proposta: o que mudou, por que isso foi relevante, quem defendeu cada posição, como as posições evoluíram, o que foi decidido e onde ainda há lacunas nas evidências.

Fatos com fonte

ID da política
LAC-2018-13
RIR
LACNIC
Status oficial
Abandoned
Status normalizado
Abandonada
Apresentada
28 de abr. de 2021
Última atualização das fontes
13 de out. de 2026
Cobertura
Parcial

Quem realmente moldou o debate?

5Total de participantes
3Participantes da discussão
2Atores formais
5Mensagens de discussão
2,3Participantes efetivos
100%Parcela dos cinco principais
1Pessoas cobrindo 50%
2Pessoas cobrindo 80%

Evolução da política

2
Abandonada · Abandoned
28 de abr. de 2021
Fatos com fonte ↗

Scope examples · The new text expressly states that the listed examples of out-of-scope discussion are illustrative only, clarifying that the prohibition is not limited to those examples.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Election-related list activity · The old text specifically addressed candidates for PDP chair and expressly mentioned voting dates and results; the new text refers more generally to candidates and the voting procedure, requires the remaining procedural steps to occur outside the list, and treats nominations and expressions for or against candidates as examples of prohibited activity.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Cultural and language considerations · The old text required cultural and language considerations when deciding on moderation of a participant; the new text applies those considerations when deciding on potential AUP violations.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Responses to improper messages · The old text treated responding to an improper third-party message as a violation; the new text limits this rule to inappropriate responses to inappropriate third-party messages.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Contact harvesting and honeypot checks · Both texts prohibit collecting participants' contact information and using it for spam, but the new text additionally authorizes LACNIC to periodically add external-domain email addresses as a honeypot to check for this conduct.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Subscriber and election reminders · The old text required an 'Election Silence' reminder before each community electoral process. The new text omits that requirement and instead requires any subscription reminders that are sent to remind subscribers of the AUP.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Temporary list moderation · The old text began with a general rule that the Public Policy List may not be moderated, subject to a very exceptional temporary-moderation provision. The new text retains the exceptional authority but omits that express general prohibition, describes the eight-hour limit as approximate, and adds that staff will support the chairs.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Election penalties for suspension evasion · The old text made disqualification as a candidate and loss of nomination rights mandatory for attempted fraud by a suspended participant, applying to any LACNIC electoral process for four years. The new text makes those consequences discretionary by stating that violations may result in loss of candidate and nomination rights in election processes for four years.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.
3
Abandonada · Abandoned
28 de abr. de 2021
Fatos com fonte ↗

Authorization for non-policy discussions · The blanket exclusion of discussions outside the list's policy scope was changed to allow such discussions when the chairs have made a prior and explicit decision.

Fatos com fonte −
Any discussion outside this scope, including but not limited to, event announcements, calls for papers, advertising of any kind (including electoral advertising), expressions of support for candidates and, in general, any topic that is not explicitly policy-related, is outside the scope of this list.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
Except in case of prior and explicit decision of the chairs, any discussion not in line with this purpose,
Fatos com fonte ↗

Private-message confidentiality · The violations list was expanded to prohibit sending or forwarding private messages unless the involved parties have given prior and explicit consent.

Fatos com fonte −
d hominem attacks, foul language and disrespect are contrary to the AUP.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
Ad hominem attacks, foul language, disrespect, and the sending (or forwarding) of private messages (unless with the prior and explicit consent of the parties involved).
Fatos com fonte ↗

Reporting suspected violations · The requirement to report suspected violations directly to the chairs was strengthened to require reporting them exclusively to the chairs.

Fatos com fonte −
ny suspected violation must be reported directly to the chairs.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
Any suspected violation must be reported exclusively to the chairs.
Fatos com fonte ↗

Definition of spam · The prohibition on collecting contact information to send spam now expressly defines spam as any message not previously and explicitly requested.

Fatos com fonte −
ther violations of the AUP include using the list to collect participants’ contact information and using such information to send spam.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
Use of the list to collect participants’ contact information and using such information for sending spam (any message that has not been previously and explicitly requested).
Fatos com fonte ↗

Fraud and penalty evasion · The former violation was limited to attempted fraud by a suspended participant, exemplified by using an alternative address; the new text covers any attempt to commit fraud or bypass a penalty, including use of alternative mail addresses.

Fatos com fonte −
) Attempted fraud by a suspended participant, e.g. the use of an alternative mail address, is also considered a violation of the AUP.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
i) Any attempt to commit fraud or bypass a penalty, such as the use of alternative mail addresses.
Fatos com fonte ↗

Chair authority to identify additional unacceptable uses · The new version expressly authorizes the chairs to determine that actions beyond the enumerated violations are unacceptable uses of the list.

Fatos com fonte −
) Attempted fraud by a suspended participant, e.g. the use of an alternative mail address, is also considered a violation of the AUP. j) Considering the global nature of list participants, when deciding on potential violations of the AUP, the chairs will take into account relevant cultural aspects and language differences.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
Based on the above, the chairs may determine what other actions also constitute unacceptable uses of the list.
Fatos com fonte ↗

Censorship of archived posts · The archive rule changed from an unqualified statement that posts may not be censored to a statement specifically that they may not be censored by LACNIC.

Fatos com fonte −
ailing list posts are archived, they are publicly available and may not be censored.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
All mailing list posts are archived, they are publicly available and may not be censored by LACNIC.
Fatos com fonte ↗

Application to communication mechanisms other than mailing lists · The new version extends the entire policy to forums, applications, and other mechanisms under the same or technically equivalent terms; the old text proceeded directly from the mailing-list moderation rule to enforcement without such an extension.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +
If additional mechanisms are used other than a mailing list (forums, applications, etc.), the entire content of this policy will also apply, under the same or technically equivalent terms.
Fatos com fonte ↗

Trigger for four-year election penalties · The four-year loss of candidacy and nomination rights was changed from being triggered by violations of old item i, concerning attempted fraud by a suspended participant, to violations relating to election processes.

Fatos com fonte −
iolations of item i) above may result in the loss of the right to be a candidate, as well as the right to nominate candidates, in election processes for four (4) years.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
Violations relating to election processes may result in the loss of the right to participate as a candidate, as well as the right to nominate candidates, in election processes for four (4) years.
Fatos com fonte ↗

Four-year election penalty for repeat violations · The new version additionally permits the four-year election-related penalty for repeat violations after the offender has received a penalty of at least one year.

Fatos com fonte −
iolations of item i) above may result in the loss of the right to be a candidate, as well as the right to nominate candidates, in election processes for four (4) years.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
This penalty may also apply in case of repeat violations once the offender has been penalized for at least one year.
Fatos com fonte ↗
4
Abandonada · Abandoned
28 de abr. de 2021
Fatos com fonte ↗

Rationale: participant knowledge of rules and penalties · The rationale changes the statement that participants “must” have explicit knowledge of permitted conduct and penalties to say that they “should” have such knowledge.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Temporary moderation duration · The moderation rule replaces the approximate maximum message delay of eight hours with a requirement that moderation last only for brief, defined periods and that messages not be delayed longer than strictly necessary.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Application of the AUP to additional communication systems · The old text applies the entire policy whenever mechanisms other than a mailing list are used. The new text instead describes the list as the current official PDP communication means and extends the AUP to future systems that replicate the list by automatically exchanging all posts with it, under the same or technically equivalent conditions.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Chair discretion in classifying listed violations · The new text expressly makes classification of the enumerated conduct as AUP violations subject to the discretion of the chairs; the old enumeration contains no equivalent discretion qualifier.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Evidence condition for contact harvesting, spam, fraud, and penalty evasion · The new text places contact-information harvesting and spam, as well as fraud or attempts to bypass a penalty, under an explicit “when evidence exists” condition. The old text lists these acts as violations without that express condition.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Posting suspensions for first and second violations · The old text automatically imposes a one-month suspension for a first violation and requires extension to one year for a second violation. The new text makes both consequences discretionary: a first violation may result in a one-month suspension, and a second may extend it up to one year.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Election-related violations and penalties · The old text permits a four-year loss of candidate-participation and nomination rights for election-related violations and allows the same penalty for repeat violations after at least a one-year penalty. The new text characterizes election-related violations as extremely serious, sets the stated loss of rights at two years, and allows up to four years for repeated violations.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Implementation when mailing-list technology is not ready · The new Additional information adds a staged implementation approach: it states that technical limitations should not prevent effectiveness upon consensus, permits initially distributing the AUP without immediately restricting posting, and defers mandatory acceptance for continued posting until the system is ready. The corresponding old Additional information ends after describing distribution and acceptance and contains no such fallback.

Fatos com fonte −A evidência validada não está disponível.
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.
5
Abandonada · Abandoned
28 de abr. de 2021
Fatos com fonte ↗

Subscriber acceptance requirements · The subscriber-specific process of sending new subscribers a link and requiring two checked confirmations is replaced by a general obligation for LACNIC to implement a system ensuring that subscribers read the PDP, especially the AUP, and confirm acceptance; subscribers who decline are limited to receiving messages.

Fatos com fonte −
chairs. A link to the PDP and the text of the AUP will be sent to each new list subscriber, who must explicitly check their acceptance. Until confirming this link by checking both options, the subscriber will only be able to receive messages from
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
e chairs. LACNIC shall implement a system that guarantees that subscribers will read the PDP (and especially the AUP) and confirm its acceptance. Should they choose not to do so, they will only be able to receive messages from
Fatos com fonte ↗

Detection of accounts used to violate the AUP · The fixed requirement to periodically add external email addresses as honeypots is replaced by a broader requirement to incorporate detection systems insofar as possible, with external-address honeypots retained only as an example.

Fatos com fonte −
erences. LACNIC will periodically add different email addresses outside its domains to be used as a
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
ferences. LACNIC shall incorporate systems that allow detecting, in so far as possible, the accounts used to breach the AUP. By way of an example, emails that are not part of the LACNIC domains may periodically be added to the list to serve as a
Fatos com fonte ↗

Chair discretion in classifying violations · Conduct listed in section 8.2 changes from being considered violations to conduct that may be considered violations at the chairs' discretion.

Fatos com fonte −
icy List At the discretion of the chairs, the following are considered violations of
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
licy List At the discretion of the chairs, the following may be considered violations o
Fatos com fonte ↗

Chair discretion over posting suspensions · Express chair discretion is moved from longer suspensions for successive violations to the initial one-month suspension and its extension for a second violation; the successive-violation sentence no longer separately states that discretion.

Fatos com fonte −
erences. The first violation of the AUP may result in a temporary suspension of the offender's right to post to the list for a period of one (1) month, which may be extended up to one (1) year in case of a second violation. At the discretion of the chairs, successive violations may result in longer sus
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
ferences. At the discretion of the chairs, the first violation of the AUP may result in a temporary suspension of the offender's right to post to the list for a period of one (1) month, which may be extended up to one (1) year in case of a second violation. Successive violations may result in longer su
Fatos com fonte ↗

Scope of election-related participation penalties · The election processes in which candidacy and nomination rights may be lost are specified as PDP election processes rather than election processes generally.

Fatos com fonte −
ensions. Violations relating to election processes are considered extremely serious and may result in the loss of the right to participate as a candidate, as well as of the right to nominate candidates, in election processes for two (2) years and for up to four (4) years in case of repeated vi
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
pensions. Violations relating to election processes are considered extremely serious and may result in the loss of the right to participate as a candidate, as well as of the right to nominate candidates, in PDP election processes for two (2) years and for up to four (4) years in case of repeated v
Fatos com fonte ↗

Implementation for existing subscribers and approval condition · The implementation provision requiring consensus, Board ratification, and an emailed acceptance workflow is replaced by a requirement for a mechanism covering existing subscribers without distinguishing their participation from that of new subscribers.

Fatos com fonte −
rmation If this proposal achieves consensus, once it is ratified by the Board, this text will be emailed to all Public Policy List subscribers along with a link to a page where they will have to explicitly check their acceptance of the AUP and confirm that they are familiar with the PDP. Until confirming this link by checking both options, the subscriber will only be able to receive messages from t
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
formation To implement this proposal, LACNIC must establish a mechanism for existing subscribers to receive and accept the AUP and the PDP such that no distinction is made between their participation and that of new su
Fatos com fonte ↗
6
Abandonada · Abandoned
28 de abr. de 2021
Fatos com fonte ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Fatos com fonte −
This moderation affects the openness of the list and especially its dynamics, two essential features of the Policy Development Process, which specifies that the list must be “completely open.” Any form of moderation constitutes censorship, even if only temporary, and therefore breaches the principle of openness. Current text N/A New text Analyze diff (Note: The following text would be added at the end of the current PDP.) 8.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
The LACNIC Community Code of Conduct (https://www.lacnic.net/4038/1/lacnic/codigo-de-conducta-de-la-comunidad-de-lacnic) specifies the following: “In the case of the mailing lists, acceptable use policies may apply that establish standards in addition to those specified in this Code.
Fatos com fonte ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Fatos com fonte −
Current text N/A New text Analyze diff (Note: The following text would be added at the end of the current PDP.) 8.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
Current text N/A New text Analyze diff (Note: The following text would be added to the current PDP, possibly at the end of the existing text, at the discretion of LACNIC.) 8.
Fatos com fonte ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Fatos com fonte −
Except in case of prior and explicit decision of the chairs, any discussion not in line with this purpose, such as event announcements, calls for papers, advertising of any kind (including electoral propaganda), expressions of support for candidates and, in general, any topic that is not explicitly policy-related, is outside the scope of this list.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Fatos com fonte −
Note that the examples listed above are for illustrative purposes only.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Fatos com fonte −
Only the chairs and/or LACNIC staff may call for and/or announce candidates and the voting procedure.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Fatos com fonte −
The remaining steps of the procedure will necessarily take place off the list.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Fatos com fonte −
By way of example, candidate nominations, expressions for or against a candidate or other similar actions are not allowed on the list.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +A evidência validada não está disponível.

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Fatos com fonte −
Only the chairs may issue a warning to those in violation of the AUP and take the corresponding actions, announcing their decision through the list.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
Only the chairs may issue a warning to those in violation of the AUP and take the appropriate actions, announcing their decision through the list Any suspected violation must be reported exclusively to the chairs.
Fatos com fonte ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Fatos com fonte −
LACNIC shall implement a system that guarantees that subscribers will read the PDP (and especially the AUP) and confirm its acceptance.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
LACNIC shall implement a system that guarantees that subscribers will read the PDP and the AUP, confirming their acceptance.
Fatos com fonte ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Fatos com fonte −
If subscription reminders are sent, such messages must also remind subscribers of the AUP.” Likewise, at the bottom of each message, a link will be included to allow list subscribers to manage their subscription preferences.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
If subscription reminders are sent, such messages must also remind subscribers of the AUP.
Fatos com fonte ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Fatos com fonte −
By way of an example, emails that are not part of the LACNIC domains may periodically be added to the list to serve as a honeypot.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
Messages posted to the list will be archived and publicly available.
Fatos com fonte ↗

Policy text · Astra identified a substantive wording change in this retained policy section.

Fatos com fonte −
Mailing list posts are archived, they are publicly available and may not be censored by LACNIC.
Fatos com fonte ↗
Fatos com fonte +
Messages posted to the list will be archived and publicly available.
Fatos com fonte ↗

Linha do tempo do debate

  1. Discussão pública

    [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2018-13

    3 Mensagens de discussão · 1 Entidades

    Fatos com fonte ↗

  2. Apresentação

    Apresentação

    Fatos com fonte ↗

  3. Versão oficial

    1

    Abandonada · Abandoned

    Fatos com fonte ↗

  4. Versão oficial

    2

    Abandonada · Abandoned

    Fatos com fonte ↗

  5. Versão oficial

    3

    Abandonada · Abandoned

    Fatos com fonte ↗

  6. Versão oficial

    4

    Abandonada · Abandoned

    Fatos com fonte ↗

  7. Versão oficial

    5

    Abandonada · Abandoned

    Fatos com fonte ↗

  8. Versão oficial

    6

    Abandonada · Abandoned

    Fatos com fonte ↗

  9. Decisão oficial

    abandoned

    abandoned

    Fatos com fonte ↗

Entidades

Atualização: Desatualizada
  1. Raúl Echeberría
    Mensagens de discussão3
    Primeira atividade19 de ago. de 2020
    Última atividade19 de ago. de 2020
    Primeira posição explícitaOposição
    Última posição explícitaOposição
    Mudanças de posição0
    Coerência do ponto de vistaCoerente
    Outras políticas5
  2. Jordi Palet Martinez
    Mensagens de discussão1
    Primeira atividade18 de abr. de 2019
    Última atividade18 de abr. de 2019
    Primeira posição explícitaDesconhecida
    Última posição explícitaDesconhecida
    Mudanças de posição0
    Coerência do ponto de vistaMista
    Outras políticas39
    Atualização: Desatualizada

    Última tentativa de pesquisa: 17 de set. de 2026

    Identidade verificada: 11 de out. de 2026

    The IPv6 Company · Histórico
    Name: Jordi Palet Martínez Email: [email protected] Organization: The IPv6 Company
    politicas.lacnic.net

    Perfis públicos verificados

    Mensagens de discussão
    1
    Primeira atividade
    18 de abr. de 2019
    Última atividade
    18 de abr. de 2019
    Primeira posição explícita
    Desconhecida
    Última posição explícita
    Desconhecida
    Mudanças de posição
    0
    Coerência do ponto de vista
    Mista
    Outras políticas
    39

    Primeira posição explícita: Desconhecida → Última posição explícita: Desconhecida · Mudanças de posição: 0

    Coerência do ponto de vista: Mista

    The main policy objectives remain coherent: usable address plans without avoidable renumbering, meaningful participation in consensus, and functional abuse contacts. The record also contains real, explained changes in mechanisms, including withdrawal of the separate non-ISP category in favor of a common allocation rule. One university example contains unresolved end-user classification language, so the record should not be described as uniformly consistent in every detail. Procedural replies and single contributions cannot establish a lasting substantive position, and quoted disagreements are not the author's own votes.

    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.

    Mi idea en esta propuesta es SOLO tocar los dos puntos indicados.

    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.

    Y creo que no es conveniente tener tantas pol?ticas como ?casos?.

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

    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.

    Condições: The author's account of his original intention cannot erase the earlier organization-longevity wording.

    El plan de direccionamiento ha de tener en cuenta la longevidad prevista de la organizaci?n.

    nunca fue la intenci?n que la longevidad fuera de la organizaci?n, sino de la distribuci?n inicial

    Modify the size of initial IPv6 allocations

    Avaliação: Mista · The August university example calls a university with several providers not an end user, yet immediately says each university could obtain its own /32 under the end-user policy. Elsewhere the distinction turns on assigning resources to separate organizations. The example therefore contains an unresolved classification ambiguity; it does not establish that multihoming alone changes an organization into an LIR.

    Condições: This concerns the precision of the example, not a demonstrated reversal of the objective of aggregated national-network addressing. · No supplied follow-up expressly reconciles those two descriptions of the university.

    necesita direccionamiento propio y obviamente NO es un usuario final.

    Si aplican a la pol?tica de usuario final, podr?an obtener, cada una de ellas su propio /32.

    asignar direcciones? a terceros

    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.

    Mi idea es ofrecer AMBAS alternativas para que la comunidad decida.

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

    v?lido para ambos casos.

    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.

    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.

    ser?a muy sencillo actualizar la propuesta para incluir ese caso.

    ahora pague por ello el cliente.

    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.

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

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

    la decisi?n del consenso (igual que en IETF) se toma en la lista, no en el meeting

    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.

    Me parece buena idea la propuesta, sin embargo, tengo una duda.

    que si lo desea renumere ahora en lugar de luego

    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.

    Mi propuesta simplemente incorpora *el mismo* texto que se aprob? para las distribuciones iniciales en las distribuciones subsiguientes

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

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

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Totalmente de acuerdo en lo que propones del punto 12.4

    Que se verifican autom?ticamente cada cierto tiempo, con un proceso automatizado desde LACNIC

    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.

    Condições: Claims about reporting volume, regional response rates, and negligible validation cost are not measured evidence in this corpus. · The proposal distinguishes common reporting access from the ISP's own contractual treatment of a customer.

    eso implica que no sean automatizados

    Lo razonable es que el primer contacto de abuso, por parte de la v?ctima, pueda ser procesado de forma autom?tica.

    procesar ese email de forma autom?tica o semi-autom?tica y RESPONDEN.

    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.

    El objetivo es que el consenso se alcance en la lista, y no en el foro

    y entonces mantener el proceso expeditivo

    hacer que el consenso sea de lista+foro en lugar de solo lista o solo foro

    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.

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

    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.

    un end-user puede tener requisitos que le impiden renumerar

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

    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.

    tiene que haber acuerdo entre ambas partes.

    pero resuelve el problema de evitar la renumeraci?n.

    poner transferir en lugar de ceder.

    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.

    Mi respuesta no negaba una versi?n 2 o 3 o las que hagan falta

    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.

    Yo desde luego votar?a por un sistema que muestre ?lado a lado? en la web

    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.

    Condições: A consistent objective does not mean identical eligibility criteria across the two designs. · The final implementation status is outside what these statements establish.

    Mi idea es ofrecer AMBAS alternativas para que la comunidad decida.

    esta pol?tica se abandona, porque el objetivo que persegu?a se cumple igualmente con la LAC-2016-7

    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.

    ser?a muy sencillo actualizar la propuesta para incluir ese caso.

    Me parece buena idea la propuesta, sin embargo, tengo una duda.

    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.

    v?lido para ambos casos.

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

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

    Avaliação: Coerente · Saying the initial-correction proposal does not change subsequent allocations is a statement about that proposal's scope. Advocating a separate subsequent-allocation revision later does not contradict it or promise that the rules would never change.

    Condições: Distinct proposals and dates must remain separate.

    no cambiamos, con esta propuesta, subsiguientes asignaciones

    el texto de subsiguientes distribuciones, al probarse este cambio, queda desfasado.

    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.

    Condições: Do not describe the two timing specifications as identical. · The asserted benefits and participation problems are the author's reasoning, not measured causal findings.

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

    ello permite participar a quienes no necesariamente viajan

    un "last call" de 4 semanas

    El objetivo principal es facilitar la participaci?n de *toda la comunidad* en igualdad de condiciones

    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.

    para evitar que se entienda como "mas votos" a favor o "en contra"

    definir "consenso" (que no es un cuenteo de votos).

    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.

    un end-user puede tener requisitos que le impiden renumerar

    pero resuelve el problema de evitar la renumeraci?n.

    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.

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

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

    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.

    El gobierno aplicar?a por end user SI la asignaci?n de direcciones fuera SOLO a entidades de la MISMA entidad

    Simplemente se considera que debe ser "temporal" y por tanto no un servicio de "banda ancha".

    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.

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

    Yo desde luego votar?a por un sistema que muestre ?lado a lado? en la web

    1. 18 de abr. de 2019 · Desconhecida

      [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2018-13

      A evidência validada não está disponível.

      Fatos com fonte ↗
    Linhas do tempo de posição por política:LAC-2016-4 · Apoio com mudanças · Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistênciaLAC-2016-5 · Apoio · CoerenteLAC-2016-7 · Apoio · CoerenteLAC-2017-1 · Apoio · CoerenteLAC-2017-7 · Propõe alternativa · CoerenteLAC-2017-8 · Propõe alternativa · Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistênciaLAC-2017-9 · Apoio · Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistênciaLAC-2018-10 · Apoio · Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistênciaLAC-2018-11 · Apoio · Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistênciaLAC-2018-12 · Apoio com mudanças · Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistênciaLAC-2018-13 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2018-14 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2018-4 · Desconhecida · Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistênciaLAC-2018-5 · Apoio com mudanças · CoerenteLAC-2018-6 · Apoio com mudanças · CoerenteLAC-2018-7 · Apoio · Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistênciaLAC-2018-8 · Apoio · CoerenteLAC-2018-9 · Apoio com mudanças · CoerenteLAC-2019-2 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2019-3 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2019-4 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2019-5 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2019-6 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2019-7 · Desconhecida · Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistênciaLAC-2019-9 · Desconhecida · Evidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistênciaLAC-2020-3 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2020-4 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2020-6 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2021-2 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2021-3 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2021-4 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2021-5 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2022-1 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2022-2 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2022-4 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2023-1 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2023-7 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2024-1 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2025-1 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declaradaLAC-2025-4 · Desconhecida · Nenhuma posição explícita declarada

    Mensagens de política: 141

  3. Tomas Lynch
    Mensagens de discussão1
    Primeira atividade5 de jul. de 2019
    Última atividade5 de jul. de 2019
    Primeira posição explícitaDesconhecida
    Última posição explícitaDesconhecida
    Mudanças de posição0
    Coerência do ponto de vistaEvidências insuficientes para avaliar a consistência
    Outras políticas2
  4. Jordi Palet Martinez · Identidade não resolvida
    Mensagens de discussão0
    Primeira atividadeDesconhecida
    Última atividadeDesconhecida
    Primeira posição explícitaDesconhecida
    Última posição explícitaDesconhecida
    Mudanças de posição0
    Coerência do ponto de vistaNenhuma posição explícita declarada
    Outras políticas0
  5. Edwin Salazar · Identidade não resolvida
    Mensagens de discussão0
    Primeira atividadeDesconhecida
    Última atividadeDesconhecida
    Primeira posição explícitaDesconhecida
    Última posição explícitaDesconhecida
    Mudanças de posição0
    Coerência do ponto de vistaNenhuma posição explícita declarada
    Outras políticas0

Fontes e cobertura

Fontes oficiais

Arquivos de discussões públicas

  • lacnic-politicas
    Primeiro registro
    21 de out. de 1999
    Último registro
    12 de out. de 2026
    Última atualização
    13 de ago. de 2026
    Cobertura
    A cobertura da fonte está incompleta.
    Carregando
    5.591
    Lacunas conhecidas
    26
  • www.lacnic.net
  • lacnic-anuncios
    Primeiro registro
    13 de ago. de 2026
    Último registro
    7 de out. de 2026
    Última atualização
    13 de out. de 2026
    Cobertura
    A cobertura da fonte está incompleta.
    Carregando
    2.149
    Lacunas conhecidas
    0
  • lacnic-ietf-lac
    Primeiro registro
    30 de mai. de 2013
    Último registro
    30 de dez. de 2015
    Última atualização
    13 de out. de 2026
    Cobertura
    A cobertura da fonte está incompleta.
    Carregando
    1.133
    Lacunas conhecidas
    0
  • lacnic-infofrida
    Primeiro registro
    14 de ago. de 2006
    Último registro
    13 de set. de 2011
    Última atualização
    13 de out. de 2026
    Cobertura
    A cobertura da fonte está incompleta.
    Carregando
    292
    Lacunas conhecidas
    0
  • lacnic-iot
    Primeiro registro
    6 de out. de 2015
    Último registro
    11 de jul. de 2017
    Última atualização
    13 de out. de 2026
    Cobertura
    A cobertura da fonte está incompleta.
    Carregando
    373
    Lacunas conhecidas
    0
  • lacnic-lacnog
    Primeiro registro
    1 de ago. de 2026
    Último registro
    9 de out. de 2026
    Última atualização
    11 de out. de 2026
    Cobertura
    A cobertura da fonte está incompleta.
    Carregando
    6.474
    Lacunas conhecidas
    3
  • lacnic-lactf
    Primeiro registro
    13 de abr. de 2004
    Último registro
    29 de dez. de 2006
    Última atualização
    13 de out. de 2026
    Cobertura
    A cobertura da fonte está incompleta.
    Carregando
    2.267
    Lacunas conhecidas
    0
  • lacnic-seguridad
    Primeiro registro
    26 de jan. de 2006
    Último registro
    28 de dez. de 2007
    Última atualização
    13 de out. de 2026
    Cobertura
    A cobertura da fonte está incompleta.
    Carregando
    1.356
    Lacunas conhecidas
    0

Cobertura

Parcial
Primeiro registro: 21 de out. de 1999
Último registro: 13 de out. de 2026

Atualização

Atualização: Desatualizada · Última atualização:

Lacunas conhecidas

  • politicas.lacnic.net: A cobertura da fonte está incompleta. · O limite da fonte ainda não foi alcançado.
  • www.lacnic.net: A cobertura da fonte está incompleta. · O limite da fonte ainda não foi alcançado.
  • lacnic-politicas: A cobertura da fonte está incompleta. · O limite da fonte ainda não foi alcançado.
  • www.lacnic.net: A cobertura da fonte está incompleta. · O limite da fonte ainda não foi alcançado.
  • lacnic-anuncios: A cobertura da fonte está incompleta. · O limite da fonte ainda não foi alcançado.
  • lacnic-ietf-lac: A cobertura da fonte está incompleta. · O limite da fonte ainda não foi alcançado.
  • lacnic-infofrida: A cobertura da fonte está incompleta. · O limite da fonte ainda não foi alcançado.
  • lacnic-iot: A cobertura da fonte está incompleta. · O limite da fonte ainda não foi alcançado.
  • lacnic-lacnog: A cobertura da fonte está incompleta. · O limite da fonte ainda não foi alcançado.
  • lacnic-lactf: A cobertura da fonte está incompleta. · O limite da fonte ainda não foi alcançado.
  • lacnic-seguridad: A cobertura da fonte está incompleta. · O limite da fonte ainda não foi alcançado.