Здесь можно проследить судьбу каждого предложения: что изменилось, почему это было важно, кто и за что выступал, как менялись позиции, какое решение было принято и где в доказательной базе всё ещё остаются пробелы.
Факты из источников
Идентификатор предложения
LAC-2019-7
RIR
LACNIC
Официальный статус
Abandoned
Статус в системе
Оставлено
Внесено
Неизвестно
Последнее обновление источника
12 окт. 2026 г.
Полнота данных
Частично
Кто на самом деле определял ход дискуссии?
3Всего участников
3Участники обсуждения
1Официальные участники
5Сообщения в обсуждении
2,3Действующие участники
100 %Доля топ-5 обсуждений
1Участники, обеспечившие 50 % активности
2Участники, обеспечившие 80 % активности
Аналитика BTW
Аналитика BTW
Что изменилось
LAC-2019-7 предлагал изменить порядок избрания председателей PDP. В восьми сохранённых версиях есть содержательные изменения. Версия 8 требует от кандидатов и избирателей не менее шести месяцев участия в списке рассылки, связывает выдвижение с контактным лицом организации — члена LACNIC и предусматривает несовместимость должностей, дисквалификацию и аннулирование выборов. Совет директоров становится высшей инстанцией обжалования и может делегировать функции избирательной комиссии. По сравнению с версией 7 восстановлено неограниченное переизбрание, а запрет использования рассылки сужен с избирательных целей вообще до агитации. Это положения проекта, а не доказательство их введения.
О чём на самом деле шёл спор
Спор касается защиты выборов без передачи открытого процесса сообщества под усиленный институциональный контроль. Проект заявляет о вмешательстве и рисках мошенничества, но сам по себе не подтверждает их независимо. Один участник в трёх письмах возражает против сложности и новых обязанностей Совета, признавая возможную пользу отдельного требования о стаже в рассылке. Другой условно поддерживает чёткую процедуру публикации заявлений в поддержку кандидатов, в том числе для предотвращения выдуманной поддержки. Третий ответ касается процедуры и последующих версий, а не подтверждённой поддержки проекта целиком.
Аргументы, повлиявшие на решение
Имеющиеся документы не называют победивший аргумент. Прекращение работы над проектом не доказывает, что исход определили возражения против сложности или институционального контроля.
Аргументы, которые не нашли поддержки
LACNIC отмечает проект как оставленный, поэтому принятие всей реформы не подтверждено. Это не означает, что каждая отдельная защитная мера была отвергнута по существу.
Решение и ход обсуждения
Страница LACNIC датирует прекращение работы над проектом 22 августа 2022 года. Пять связанных писем относятся к маю 2019 — июню 2020 года: они подтверждают обсуждение до 2021 года, но не объясняют дальнейший исход. Процедурный ответ, условная поддержка одного механизма и возражения против общей конструкции не составляют простого голосования за и против.
Концентрация участия
Сохранённая дискуссия включает пять писем трёх участников за четыре дня активности. Один человек написал три письма, то есть 60%; HHI по долям сообщений равен 0,44, что соответствует примерно 2,27 одинаково активного участника. Это характеристика неполного набора свидетельств, а не всего сообщества, веса голосов или контроля над решением. Повторные возражения одного человека не равны трём независимым оппонентам.
Узкие места
Шестимесячный срок и выдвижение через контакты организаций-членов определяли бы доступ к выборам. Дисквалификация за агитацию или достаточные признаки мошенничества делает толкование и применение правил существенными. Высшая апелляционная роль Совета концентрировала бы пересмотр, а делегирование меняло бы его исполнителя. Неограниченное переизбрание может благоприятствовать преемственности и действующим председателям. Это возможные последствия проекта, а не установленные злоупотребления или уже принятые полномочия.
Что остаётся неясным
Дата первоначального внесения и точные даты публикации восьми версий не подтверждены. 30 августа 2021 года — дата последнего изменения страницы, а не доказанная дата появления проекта или всех его версий.
Полная дискуссия и причины прекращения работы пока отсутствуют; новые свидетельства могут изменить оценку участия и причин исхода.
В некоторых сохранённых письмах повреждены знаки с диакритикой, а часть публичных идентичностей не установлена. Цитируемые мнения нельзя приписывать автору ответа.
PDP chair role incompatibilities · The proposed incompatibility rule changes from barring other positions within RIR/NIR, ICANN, TLD, or similar organizational structures to barring roles directly involved in any phase of the policy development process. The new wording also expressly provides that an elected candidate will cease in, or not assume, the incompatible role as specified in the nomination.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Candidate membership qualification and nomination support · Candidate qualification changes from being a LACNIC member or being supported by two LACNIC members to being the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or being nominated by two such membership contacts.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Electoral use of the Public Policy List and disqualification · The rule requiring candidates to comply strictly with the AUP and allowing supporter AUP violations to disqualify a candidate is replaced by a rule under which electoral use of the list, including by candidate supporters, may result in disqualification at the chairs' discretion when there is evidence of collusion.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Fraud findings and invalidation of the election process · The fraud provision is revised to apply at any time during the process and expressly permits disqualification of implicated candidates or invalidation and repetition of the entire process. The revised text directs that the replacement timeline align the election results as closely as possible with the following Public Policy Forum.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Runoff election trigger · Runoff voting is expanded beyond a tie between leading candidates. In an election with more than two candidates, a runoff between the top two candidates is also required when the leading candidate's margin is less than 10%.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Assessment of post-result objections · The objection standard changes from assessing whether objections are significant to assessing whether they are both significant and proven. The ratification condition is also rephrased so ratification proceeds if no objections are raised or the chairs decide not to consider them.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Recusal of a chair who is a candidate · A candidate-chair's recusal expands from abstaining only as chair during ratification to abstaining from every aspect of the election process. The revised text additionally requires the Board of Directors to appoint one or two non-candidate community members, as applicable, to chair the process.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Election appeals · The supplied new text adds that the LACNIC Board of Directors is the highest instance of appeal for matters relating to the election process; the supplied old text contains no corresponding appeal provision.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Candidate nomination sponsorship · The candidate sponsorship alternative changes from nomination by "two membership contact" of a single LACNIC member organization to nomination by two membership contacts of LACNIC member organizations, clarifying that two contacts are required and allowing the wording to encompass multiple organizations.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Chair reelection eligibility · The old text says chairs are "illegible" to run again after a one-year pause; the new text says they are "eligible" to run again. This reverses the literal eligibility rule after the pause.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Voter eligibility and voter registry controls · The fixed rule allowing participation by anyone who had been on the Public Policy List for at least six months is replaced by a voter-registry anti-tampering provision under which efforts will be made to exclude election-only subscribers, with a subscription cutoff of an unspecified number of months offered as an example.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
One-vote safeguard · The electronic-voting safeguard changes from an unqualified requirement to use mechanisms ensuring one vote per voter to a requirement to ensure this only "to the extent possible."
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Electoral misuse of the Public Policy List · Disqualification for collusive electoral use of the list is no longer expressly stated to be at the discretion of the chairs; the new text retains possible disqualification where there is evidence of collusion without identifying that decision-maker in this provision.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Fraud findings and process invalidation authority · The old text expressly assigns the chairs responsibility for determining whether sufficient indications of fraud exist and authority to disqualify candidates or invalidate the process. The new text uses impersonal or passive language and no longer expressly assigns those decisions to the chairs.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Candidate acceptance announcement · The announcement provision changes from publishing the names of "acceptable candidates" to publishing the names of candidates who meet all requirements and have been accepted, expressly linking publication to satisfaction of the requirements and acceptance.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Community information about candidates and Board disqualification · The old text allows community submissions consisting of expressions of support and information for objections and requires simultaneous publication. The new text instead conditions publication on confirmation of the information and expressly authorizes the Board to disqualify one or more candidates based on that information.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Tie definition and runoff threshold · The old text triggers a runoff for an exact tie or, when there are more than two candidates, when the leading margin is below 10%. The new text defines any difference below 10% as a tie and provides for a runoff between the top two when there are more than two candidates.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Objections and ratification authority · Responsibility for receiving objections, assessing whether they are significant and proven, and ratifying the winner shifts from the acting chairs to the LACNIC Board.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Recusal and replacement when a chair is a candidate · The old text requires a chair who is running to abstain from every aspect of the election process and requires the Board to appoint one or two non-candidate community members to chair the process. The new text omits this recusal-and-replacement provision while assigning the objection and ratification decision to the Board.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +Проверенные данные недоступны.
Restrictions on the two PDP Chairs' affiliations · The restriction preventing both chairs from being from the same country was replaced by a restriction preventing them from being from the same company or the same or related companies. The former exception also specified how one chair would cease serving at the following election, while the replacement exception contains no corresponding cessation procedure.
Факты из источников −
irs may not be from the same country, except in exceptional situations where there are no other acceptable candidates, in which case one of the chairs will cease in their position in the following election process (the following year), either because their term has come to an end or by agreement among the two chairs, failing which the chair who has held the position the longest will automatically cease in their position. o Thes
rs may not be from the same company or from the same or related companies, except in exceptional cases where there are no other acceptable candidates. o Their wo
Nature and compensation of Chair work · The positions were described as honorary; the replacement text expressly describes the work as voluntary and unpaid.
Candidate residency and member-contact nomination requirements · Candidate eligibility changed from being a LACNIC member-organization contact or being nominated by two such contacts to residing in the region for more than half the year and being either a member-organization contact or nominated by one such contact.
Факты из источников −
un for the position, a candidate must be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or, alternately, they must be nominated by two membership contacts of LACNIC member organizations. o PDP
es to the position must reside in the region more than 50% of the year and they must be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or nominated by one such contact. o PDP Chai
Voter-registry subscription cutoff · The illustrative cutoff based on subscribers who joined an unspecified “n” months before the process was replaced by a fixed requirement that subscribers have joined at least six months before the process.
Факты из источников −
hat the voters registry consists of the subscribers to the Public Policy List, in order to avoid tampering, efforts will be made to keep participants who subscribe solely for the election process from participating in each election, for example, by limiting the voters registry to those who have subscribed “n” months prior to the start of said process. o Any use
e voters registry consists of the subscribers to the Public Policy List, in order to avoid tampering, efforts will be made to keep participants who subscribe solely for the election process from participating in each election by limiting the voters registry to those who have subscribed at least six months prior to the start of said process. o Any use of the
Delegation of election-process functions · A provision was added allowing the Board of Directors to delegate its election-process functions to a Fiscal Commission or equivalent body; the prior text proceeded directly from the Board's appellate authority to additional information.
Факты из источников −
NIC Board is the highest instance of appeal in matters relating to the election process. Additional information - Timetable
ard is the highest instance of appeal in matters relating to the election process. o The Board of Directors may delegate its functions relate to the election process to a Fiscal Commission or its equivalent. Additional infor
Implementation timetable · The timetable field changed from “Immediate implementation” to a dash, with no timetable value stated in the supplied replacement text.
PDP Chair candidate eligibility and nomination requirements · The candidate requirement no longer states that candidates must reside in the region more than 50% of the year. It instead requires a candidate to be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or to be nominated by such a membership contact.
Факты из источников −
didates to the position must reside in the region more than 50% of the year and they must be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or nominated by one such contact. o PDP
run for the position, a candidate must be the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization or nominated by the membership contact of a LACNIC member organization. o PDP
PDP Chair re-election limits · The re-election rule changes from allowing only one consecutive term followed by a one-year pause to allowing re-election once and renewed eligibility after a period of at least one year.
Факты из источников −
Chairs will each serve a two-year term, with one position up for renewal each year. PDP Chairs may only be re-elected for one consecutive term, but are eligible to run again after a one-year pause. o Can
Chairs will each serve a two-year term, with one position up for renewal each year. PDP Chairs may be re-elected once, but are eligible to run again after a period of at least one year. o Can
Restrictions on chairs' country and organizational affiliation · The restriction changed from prohibiting chairs from the same or related companies to prohibiting chairs from the same country or from the same or related organizations, while retaining an exception when no other acceptable candidates exist.
Факты из источников −
o The Chairs may not be from the same company or from the same or related companies, except in exceptional cases where there are no other acceptable candidates.
3.2.2.3. The chairs may not be from the same country, or from the same or related organizations, except in exceptional cases where there are no other acceptable candidates.
Use of the Public Policy List for electoral purposes · The earlier text tied possible disqualification to electoral use of the list by persons supportive of a candidate where collusion was evidenced. The revised text expressly prohibits electoral use of the list, including expressions for or against candidates, and specifies that proven collusion with a candidate may disqualify that candidate.
Факты из источников −
Any use of the list for electoral purposes, even by persons clearly supportive of a candidate, may result in their disqualification if there is evidence of collusion.
.2.3.4. Any use of the list for electoral purposes is not allowed, including expressions for or against the candidates. If evidence of collusion with a candidate is found, this may result in the candidate's disqualification.
Election process scheduling · The fixed schedule requiring a call for candidates on the first day of the month three full months before the term ends, with a 28-to-31-day nomination phase, was replaced by a requirement to begin sufficiently early to permit completion before the outgoing chair's term ends even if the process must be repeated.
Факты из источников −
o The election process begins with a call for candidates issued on the 1st day of the month three full months prior to the end of the term of the chair that is to cease in their position. This phase will remain open for 28 to 31 days, depending on the length of the particular month during which it takes place.
3.2.3.6. The election process will begin with sufficient anticipation such that, even if the process were to be repeated, there will be enough time for it to be completed before the end of the term of the outgoing chair.
Community information concerning candidates · The fixed ten-day community-information period, mandatory simultaneous publication of confirmed information, and resulting Board disqualification authority were replaced by a period of at least ten days for submitting relevant information to the Board, with the Board empowered to decide on its use, publication, and potential disqualification.
Факты из источников −
o A period of ten calendar days will then begin during which the community will be able to contribute relevant information on the candidates. If confirmed, this information will be published simultaneously for all candidates on the first working day following the end of the ten-day period. Based on such information, the Board may proceed to disqualify one or more candidates.
3.2.3.8. A period of no less than ten calendar days will then begin during which the community may communicate to the Board of Directors information on any of the candidates which they consider relevant to the election. The potential use and publication of such information and even a potential disqualification are within the powers of the Board of Directors
Voting period · The requirement that voting begin on the first working Monday after the preceding period and remain open for exactly seven calendar days was replaced by a requirement that voting remain open for no less than seven calendar days, without the prior Monday-based start rule.
Факты из источников −
o Voting will begin on the first working Monday after the period specified above and will remain open for seven calendar days.
Winner determination and runoff voting · The earlier rule treated a vote difference below 10% as a tie and conditionally required a runoff between the two leading candidates. The revised rule elects the candidate with the most votes, limits runoff voting to an actual tie between the two highest tied candidates, and requires the runoff to remain open for at least seven calendar days.
Факты из источников −
o A difference of less than 10% will be considered a tie. In this case, if there are more than two candidates, runoff voting among the two candidates with the highest number of votes will begin the following working Monday and will remain open for seven calendar days.
3.2.3.10. The candidate with the highest number of votes will be elected. In the event of a tie, runoff voting among the two candidates who tied with the highest number of votes will begin and will remain open for a period of not less than seven cal
Announcement of voting results · The requirement for LACNIC to announce first-round and applicable runoff results immediately was replaced by a requirement to announce each voting round's result as soon as feasible.
Факты из источников −
o LACNIC will immediately announce the results of the first voting round as well as those of the runoff vote if applicable.
Current-text vacancy replacement term · In the quoted current text, the prior statement that a person elected after a failed ratification serves only the remainder of the original term is replaced by a statement that the Board-appointed chair serves only until an election can be held and a winner ratified.
Факты из источников −
o If a winner is not ratified, the LACNIC Board will appoint a chair to fill the vacant position until the following Public Policy Forum. The next time an election and ratification process can be held, the person elected will only fill the position for the remainder of the original term.
o If a winner is not ratified, the LACNIC Board will appoint a chair to fill the vacant position until the following Public Policy Forum. The person thus appointed will only fill the position until the next time an election can be held and a is winner ratified.
Incompatible roles for PDP Chairs · The proposed incompatibility rule is revised from roles involved in any phase of the policy-development process to roles directly involved in its flow, with the Electoral Commission and Board of Directors added as examples; the procedure for relinquishing an incompatible role is also rephrased.
Факты из источников −
3.2.2.2. The position is not compatible with other roles that are directly involved in the flow of the policy development process in any of its phases. If this were the case, the candidate's nomination must specify how they will solve this situation should they be elected Thus, if they are elected, they will automatically cease in (or not take possession of, as the case may be) such incompatible positions, as specified in their nomination. 3
3.2.2.2. The position is not compatible with other roles that are directly involved in the flow of the policy development process (e.g., the Electoral Commission or the Board of Directors). If this situation were to occur, the candidate's nomination must specify how they will solve this situation should they be elected, in which case they will automatically cease in (or not take possession of, as the case may be) the incompatible positions, as specified in their nomination.
Geographic and organizational diversity of Chairs · The proposed restriction preventing both Chairs from being from the same country or the same or related organizations, except when no other acceptable candidates exist, is removed.
Факты из источников −
.2.2.3. The chairs may not be from the same country, or from the same or related organizations, except in exceptional cases where there are no other acceptable candidates. 3
Voter registry eligibility · The voter-registry rule changes from an effort-based mechanism intended to exclude election-only subscribers to a categorical statement that the registry comprises persons who subscribed at least six months before the election process began.
Факты из источников −
. 3.2.3.3. Given that the voters registry consists of the subscribers to the Public Policy List, in order to avoid tampering, efforts will be made to keep participants who subscribe solely for the election process from participating in each election by limiting the voters registry to those who have subscribed at least six months prior to the start of said process.
. 3.2.3.3. The voters’ registry will be comprised of those persons who subscribed to the Public Policy List at least six months prior to the start of the election proce
Use of the Public Policy List for electoral purposes · The blanket prohibition on electoral use of the list, including expressions for or against candidates, is replaced by a prohibition that expressly excepts LACNIC announcements. Candidate disqualification is changed from being tied to evidence of collusion to being a possible consequence of noncompliance generally.
Факты из источников −
3.2.3.4. Any use of the list for electoral purposes is not allowed, including expressions for or against the candidates. If evidence of collusion with a candidate is found, this may result in the candidate's disqualific
ss. 3.2.3.4. With the exception of announcements by LACNIC, using the list for electoral purposes is forbidden. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the disqualification of the candida
Fraud remedies and repeat-election timing · The fraud provision is condensed. It retains possible candidate disqualification and election invalidation but removes the explicit requirement that LACNIC repeat the entire process and the requirement to align the repeated election results as closely as possible with the following Public Policy Forum.
Факты из источников −
ation. 3.2.3.5. If at any time during the process it is determined that there are sufficient indications of fraud, the candidate or candidates in question may be disqualified. If necessary, they may even invalidate the entire process and request that LACNIC repeat the process in its entirety, in which case a timeline will be set such that the timing of the election results will coincide as much as possible with the following Public Policy F
tes. 3.2.3.5. If at any time during the process it is determined that there are sufficient indications of fraud, the candidate or candidates in question may be disqualified, and the election process may be invalidated and a new one reques
Election scheduling, candidate publication, and community review · The proposed requirements to start elections sufficiently early for a repeat process, publish the accepted candidates, and provide at least ten calendar days for community submissions about candidates are removed.
Факты из источников −Проверенные данные недоступны.Факты из источников +
ted. 3.2.3.6. Elected chairs will begin their term immediately after the closing of the following Public Policy Fo
Voting duration, winner determination, runoff, and result announcements · The proposed minimum seven-day voting period, highest-vote winner rule, minimum seven-day runoff procedure for ties, and prompt announcement of each voting round are removed.
Факты из источников −
ctors. 3.2.3.9. Voting will be open for a period of not less than seven calendar days. 3.2.3.10. The candidate with the highest number of votes will be elected. In the event of a tie, runoff voting among the two candidates who tied with the highest number of votes will begin and will remain open for a period of not less than seven calendar days. 3.2.3.11. The result of each voting round will be announced as soon as feas
Objections and Board ratification procedure · The proposed seven-day period for objections, Board assessment of whether objections are significant and proven, and express Board ratification of the winning candidate are removed.
Факты из источников −
ible. 3.2.3.12. If any objections are raised by a member of the community, such objections must be communicated to the Board within seven calendar days of the announcement of the results. In this case, the Board will assess whether such objections are significant and have been proven. If no objections are raised, or if the Board decides not to consider such objections, it will proceed to ratify the winning candi
Term following failed ratification or early vacancy · The prior proposal stated that the person elected after a failed ratification would serve only the remainder of the original term. The revised proposal instead states that the Board-appointed chair serves until an election can be held and a winner ratified, while retaining application of the mechanism to resignation or failure to perform responsibilities.
Факты из источников −
orum. 3.2.3.14. If it were not possible to ratify a candidate, the LACNIC Board will appoint a chair to fill the vacant position until the following Public Policy Forum. The next time an election and ratification process can be held, the person elected will only fill the position for the remainder of the original term. This same mechanism will apply, if necessary, in case either of the chairs resigns before the end of their term or for any reason fails to meet their responsibili
rum. 3.2.3.7. If it is not possible to ratify any of the candidates, the LACNIC Board will appoint a chair to fill the vacant position until the following Public Policy Forum. The person thus appointed will only fill the position until the next time an election can be held and a is winner ratified. This same mechanism will apply, if necessary, in case either of the chairs resigns before the end of their term or for any reason fails to meet their responsibilit
Delegation of Board election functions · The body to which the Board may delegate election-related functions is changed from a Fiscal Commission or equivalent to an Electoral Commission or equivalent.
Факты из источников −
cess. 3.2.3.16. The Board of Directors may delegate its functions relate to the election process to a Fiscal Commission or its equival
PDP chair reelection eligibility · The reelection rule changed from allowing only one consecutive reelection followed by a waiting period of at least one year to allowing unlimited reelection.
Факты из источников −
PDP Chairs may only be re-elected once but are eligible to run again after a period of at least one year.
Use of the Public Policy List during elections · The prohibited use of the list changed from the broader category of "electoral purposes" to "campaigning."
Факты из источников −
. 3.2.3.4. With the exception of announcements by LACNIC, using the list for electoral purposes is forbidde
Первая заявленная позиция: Неизвестно → Последняя заявленная позиция: Неизвестно · Изменения позиций: 0
Согласованность позиции: Смешанная
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.
Оценка: Недостаточно доказательств для оценки согласованности · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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
Оценка: Смешанная · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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
Оценка: Недостаточно доказательств для оценки согласованности · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Недостаточно доказательств для оценки согласованности · 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.
Условия: 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
Оценка: Недостаточно доказательств для оценки согласованности · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Недостаточно доказательств для оценки согласованности · 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.
Условия: 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
Оценка: Недостаточно доказательств для оценки согласованности · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Недостаточно доказательств для оценки согласованности · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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
Оценка: Недостаточно доказательств для оценки согласованности · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Недостаточно доказательств для оценки согласованности · 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.
Условия: 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
Оценка: Недостаточно доказательств для оценки согласованности · 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.
Условия: 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
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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).
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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.
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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".
Оценка: Согласованная · 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.
Условия: 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
24 июн. 2019 г. · Процедурная или нейтральная
[LACNIC/Politicas] 2019-6, 2019-7 - Fin discusión inicial / Fin discussão inicial / End initial discussion
"o?do cocina", es decir, concuerdo contigo. Mi respuesta no negaba una versi?n 2 o 3 o las que hagan falta, sino aclaraba que son mensajes del procedimiento. … Estamos "in-sync".
