发生了什么变化
LAC-2019-7 拟修改 PDP 主席选举程序。已留存的八个版本包含实质修订。第八版要求候选人和选民在选举开始前加入政策邮件列表至少六个月，提名须与成员机构的会员联系人关联，并规定职务不相容、取消候选资格及选举无效等安排。董事会被设为选举事务的最高申诉层级，可将相关职能委托给选举委员会。与第七版相比，第八版恢复了不限次数连任，并将邮件列表使用禁令从选举用途收窄为竞选宣传。这些是提案条款，不能视为已经实施。
LACNIC · RIR 观察
PDP Chair Election Procedure
从这里开始，逐项查看提案记录：发生了哪些变化、为何重要、各方提出了什么主张、立场如何演变、最终作出了什么决定，以及证据仍存在哪些缺口。
来源事实
- 政策编号
- LAC-2019-7
- RIR
- LACNIC
- 官方状态
- Abandoned
- 标准化状态
- 已放弃
- 提出时间
- 未知
- 最近来源更新
- 2026年10月13日
- 覆盖范围
- 部分
究竟是谁影响了这场辩论？
3参与者总数
3讨论参与者
1正式角色
5讨论消息
2.3有效参与者
100%前五名讨论占比
1覆盖 50% 讨论的人数
2覆盖 80% 讨论的人数
BTW 分析
BTW 分析
讨论真正围绕什么
争论的核心是：如何保护选举，同时避免把开放的社区程序转变为更受机构控制的程序。提案提出存在干预和欺诈风险，但这些指控并未因写入提案就得到独立证实。一名通信者在三封邮件中反对提案过于复杂、扩大董事会职责，同时认为单独规定加入列表的最低时长可能有价值。另一名通信者有条件地赞成通过明确程序公布候选人的支持声明，以减少伪造支持等问题。第三人的回复讨论程序和后续版本，不能据此认定其支持整份提案。
占上风的论点
- 现有决定记录没有说明哪项论点占了上风。仅凭提案被放弃，无法断定复杂性或机构控制方面的反对意见促成了这一结果。
未被采纳的论点
- LACNIC 将提案记为已放弃，因此现有记录不能证明整套改革获采纳；这也不等于每一项防护措施都因其内容而遭到否定。
决定与讨论
LACNIC 政策页面记载的放弃日期为 2022 年 8 月 22 日。目前关联的五封讨论邮件覆盖 2019 年 5 月至 2020 年 6 月，证明讨论早于 2021 年，但未解释后来的处理结果。程序性回复、对单项机制的附条件支持，以及对整体设计的反对，不能简单折算成赞成票与反对票。
参与集中度
现有讨论记录包含三名参与者在四个活跃日发送的五封邮件。一人发了三封，占 60%；按邮件份额计算的 HHI 为 0.44，相当于约 2.27 名发言量相同的参与者。这些数字仅描述尚不完整的证据范围，不代表整个社区、投票权重或决定权。同一个人反复提出异议，不等于有三名独立反对者。
关键控制点分析
六个月的资格期限和会员联系人提名要求，会影响哪些人能够进入选举。因竞选宣传或足够的欺诈迹象而取消资格，使规则解释与执行具有实际影响。董事会的最高申诉地位会集中复核权限，授权安排则决定由谁实际行使这些职能。不限次数连任可能有利于连续性和现任者。这是对提案机制及潜在影响的分析，不是对滥权事实或已实施权限的认定。
不确定性
- 提案最初提交日期及八个版本各自的准确发布日期仍未核实。页面的 2021 年 8 月 30 日最后修改时间，不能用来证明提案或全部版本均始于该日。
- 完整讨论及放弃原因仍有缺口；新增证据可能改变参与分布和因果判断。
- 部分留存邮件的重音字符已损坏，部分公开身份尚未厘清。不能把引述或转述的立场归给回复邮件的作者。
政策演变
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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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%.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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."
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
暂无经验证的证据。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.
来源事实 −
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来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
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来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
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来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
NIC Board is the highest instance of appeal in matters relating to the election process. Additional information - Timetable来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
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来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
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来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
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.来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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.来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
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.来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
.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.来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
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.来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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.来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
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.来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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来源事实 ↗
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.
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.
来源事实 −
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.来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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来源事实 ↗
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.
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.
来源事实 −
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.来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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.来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
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来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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.来源事实 ↗
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.
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.
来源事实 −
. 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.来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
. 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来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
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来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
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来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
暂无经验证的证据。来源事实 +
ted. 3.2.3.6. Elected chairs will begin their term immediately after the closing of the following Public Policy Fo来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
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来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
ted. 3.2.3.6. Elected chairs will begin their term immediately after the closing of the following Public Policy Fo来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
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来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
ted. 3.2.3.6. Elected chairs will begin their term immediately after the closing of the following Public Policy Fo来源事实 ↗
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.
来源事实 −
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来源事实 ↗
来源事实 +
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来源事实 ↗
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.
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.
Use of the Public Policy List during elections · The prohibited use of the list changed from the broader category of "electoral purposes" to "campaigning."
讨论时间线
实体
新鲜度: 已过期
- Arturo Servin · 身份尚未解析讨论消息1首次活动2019年5月15日最近活动2019年5月15日首次明确立场修改后支持最近明确立场修改后支持立场变化0观点一致性证据不足，无法评估一致性其他政策10
- 新鲜度: 已过期
最近一次研究尝试: 2026年9月17日
身份已验证: 2026年10月11日
The IPv6 Company · 历史 Name: Jordi Palet Martínez Email: [email protected] Organization: The IPv6 Company
politicas.lacnic.net- 讨论消息
- 1
- 首次活动
- 2019年6月24日
- 最近活动
- 2019年6月24日
- 首次明确立场
- 未知
- 最近明确立场
- 未知
- 立场变化
- 0
- 观点一致性
- 混合
- 其他政策
- 39
首次明确立场: 未知 → 最近明确立场: 未知 · 立场变化: 0
观点一致性: 混合
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
评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 混合 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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.
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · 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.
条件: 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)
评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · 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.
条件: 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.
评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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.
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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.
评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 一致 · 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.
条件: 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
- 2019年6月24日 · 程序性或中立
[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".
来源事实 ↗
各政策立场时间线:LAC-2016-4 · 修改后支持 · 证据不足，无法评估一致性LAC-2016-5 · 支持 · 一致LAC-2016-7 · 支持 · 一致LAC-2017-1 · 支持 · 一致LAC-2017-7 · 提出替代方案 · 一致LAC-2017-8 · 提出替代方案 · 证据不足，无法评估一致性LAC-2017-9 · 支持 · 证据不足，无法评估一致性LAC-2018-10 · 支持 · 证据不足，无法评估一致性LAC-2018-11 · 支持 · 证据不足，无法评估一致性LAC-2018-12 · 修改后支持 · 证据不足，无法评估一致性LAC-2018-13 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2018-14 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2018-4 · 未知 · 证据不足，无法评估一致性LAC-2018-5 · 修改后支持 · 一致LAC-2018-6 · 修改后支持 · 一致LAC-2018-7 · 支持 · 证据不足，无法评估一致性LAC-2018-8 · 支持 · 一致LAC-2018-9 · 修改后支持 · 一致LAC-2019-2 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2019-3 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2019-4 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2019-5 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2019-6 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2019-7 · 未知 · 证据不足，无法评估一致性LAC-2019-9 · 未知 · 证据不足，无法评估一致性LAC-2020-3 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2020-4 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2020-6 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2021-2 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2021-3 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2021-4 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2021-5 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2022-1 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2022-2 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2022-4 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2023-1 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2023-7 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2024-1 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2025-1 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场LAC-2025-4 · 未知 · 未明确表明立场政策消息总数: 141
来源与覆盖
公开讨论记录
- lacnic-politicas
- 最早收录
- 1999年10月21日
- 最近收录
- 2026年10月12日
- 最近刷新
- 2026年8月13日
- 覆盖范围
- 来源覆盖尚不完整。
- 加载中
- 5,631
- 已知缺口
- 26
- www.lacnic.net
- lacnic-anuncios
- 最早收录
- 2026年8月13日
- 最近收录
- 2026年10月7日
- 最近刷新
- 2026年10月13日
- 覆盖范围
- 来源覆盖尚不完整。
- 加载中
- 2,170
- 已知缺口
- 0
- lacnic-ietf-lac
- 最早收录
- 2013年5月30日
- 最近收录
- 2015年12月30日
- 最近刷新
- 2026年10月13日
- 覆盖范围
- 来源覆盖尚不完整。
- 加载中
- 1,133
- 已知缺口
- 0
- lacnic-infofrida
- 最早收录
- 2006年8月14日
- 最近收录
- 2011年9月13日
- 最近刷新
- 2026年10月13日
- 覆盖范围
- 来源覆盖尚不完整。
- 加载中
- 292
- 已知缺口
- 0
- lacnic-iot
- 最早收录
- 2015年10月6日
- 最近收录
- 2017年7月11日
- 最近刷新
- 2026年10月13日
- 覆盖范围
- 来源覆盖尚不完整。
- 加载中
- 373
- 已知缺口
- 0
- lacnic-lacnog
- 最早收录
- 2026年8月1日
- 最近收录
- 2026年10月9日
- 最近刷新
- 2026年10月11日
- 覆盖范围
- 来源覆盖尚不完整。
- 加载中
- 6,512
- 已知缺口
- 3
- lacnic-lactf
- 最早收录
- 2004年4月13日
- 最近收录
- 2006年12月29日
- 最近刷新
- 2026年10月13日
- 覆盖范围
- 来源覆盖尚不完整。
- 加载中
- 2,267
- 已知缺口
- 0
- lacnic-seguridad
- 最早收录
- 2006年1月26日
- 最近收录
- 2007年12月28日
- 最近刷新
- 2026年10月13日
- 覆盖范围
- 来源覆盖尚不完整。
- 加载中
- 1,356
- 已知缺口
- 0
覆盖范围
部分
最早收录: 1999年10月21日
最近收录: 2026年10月13日
新鲜度
新鲜度: 已过期 · 最近刷新:
已知缺口
- politicas.lacnic.net: 来源覆盖尚不完整。 · 尚未达到来源边界。
- www.lacnic.net: 来源覆盖尚不完整。 · 尚未达到来源边界。
- lacnic-politicas: 来源覆盖尚不完整。 · 尚未达到来源边界。
- www.lacnic.net: 来源覆盖尚不完整。 · 尚未达到来源边界。
- lacnic-anuncios: 来源覆盖尚不完整。 · 尚未达到来源边界。
- lacnic-ietf-lac: 来源覆盖尚不完整。 · 尚未达到来源边界。
- lacnic-infofrida: 来源覆盖尚不完整。 · 尚未达到来源边界。
- lacnic-iot: 来源覆盖尚不完整。 · 尚未达到来源边界。
- lacnic-lacnog: 来源覆盖尚不完整。 · 尚未达到来源边界。
- lacnic-lactf: 来源覆盖尚不完整。 · 尚未达到来源边界。
- lacnic-seguridad: 来源覆盖尚不完整。 · 尚未达到来源边界。