Carlos Plasencia

Документированные сведения о публичной роли, решениях или участии Carlos Plasencia в правовых вопросах могут влиять на инвестиции в сети, доступ на рынок, инфраструктурную политику или границы ответственности; досье отделяет цитируемые сведения от проверки текущей должности.

Доступные данные охватывают Роли: policy proposal author (LACNIC).

Последние 2026-09-20

Роли: policy proposal author (LACNIC)

Уверенность

Публичная роль: Цитируемые открытые источники указывают на Carlos Plasencia как на человека, связанного с решениями, судебными делами, управлением или эксплуатацией интернет-инфраструктуры; текущая должность и принадлежность ещё требуют проверки.

Связанные сведения

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

Последнее обновление: 2026-09-20

Роли

Role:policy proposal author (LACNIC)Ещё не оцененоИсторические сведения

Факты из источников

Участие в обсуждении политики RIR

1Участие по реестрам RIR

18Предложения с участием

35Всего сообщений в обсуждениях

5 июн. 2014 г.Первое участие

29 апр. 2016 г.Последнее участие

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