Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:49:04 -0300
Subject: [LACNIC/Politicas] Summary week of 20th to 26th April 2009 -
Sum?rio das discuss?es semana de 20 a 26 de abril - Resumen
discusiones seman del 20 al 26 de abril
- - ---------------
Portugu?s a continua??o
Espa?ol a continuaci?n.
- - ---------------
(English)
Abstract discussions happened on the Public Policy mailing list on the
week from the 20th to the 26th April.
[LAC-2009-04] Transfer of IPv4 blocks in the LACNIC region.
The debate referring to this policy continued. You can find the
complete policy text at:
http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-04-propuesta-en.pdf
Here is an abstract of the comments on the mailing list:
[Christian O'Flaherty - 18 Abril 2009 - recap] ?Would this mean that
the entity that originated the transfer does not need to perform any
previous process? Will everything be the responsibility of the entity
that received the transfer?"
[Francisco Arias - 20 Abril 2009] "In general yes. However the
following is referred in a previous bullet:
2.3.18.4.- Upon receiving an IPv4 address block transfer request,
LACNIC shall verify that the entity transferring the block is in fact
the holder of said block and that no disputes exist in relation to
said block."
～ポルトガル語・スペイン語版は略～
ここのところLACNICのサマリ送出間隔が狭くなってきている気がする。
年に一度の会議を前に気合が見えます。
しかし新型インフルエンザがARIN/RIPE/AfriNIC/LACNICの会議シーズン直撃ですね。
参加者はくれぐれも気をつけてください。
4/28/2009
4/24/2009
LACNIC-politicas@Apr 23, 2009
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:25:53 -0300
Subject: [LACNIC/Politicas] Summary week of 13th to 19th April 2009 -
Sum?rio das discuss?es semana de 13 a 19 de abril - Resumen
discusiones seman del 13 al 19 de abril
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Portugu?s a continua??o
Espa?ol a continuaci?n.
- ---------------
(English)
Abstract LACNIC Public Policy Mailing list discussion - week of 13th
to 19th April 2009.
[LAC-2009-04] Transfer of IPv4 blocks in the LACNIC region.
The debate referring to this policy continued.
You can find the complete policy text at: http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-04-propuesta-en.pdf
Here is an abstract of the comments on the mailing list:
[Christian O'Flaherty - 16th April 2009] - ?What about the legacy
space? These blocks were allocated previously to the creation of the
RIRs, are they included in this policy??
[Francisco Arias - 17th April 2009] - "We did not considered
explicitly the legacy resources, but I believe that the idea would be
for them to be subject to transfers. However, when transferred they
should stop being legacy resources?
[Francisco Arias - 18th April 2009] - ?The last point in policy
proposal states: 2.3.2.18.9 - The receiving entity must comply with
all LACNIC policies in force , this point will have the effect that I
was mentioning. ?
[Christian O'Flaherty - 18th April 2009] - ?Would this mean that the
entity that originated the transfer do not need to perform any
previous process? Will everything be the responsibility of the entity
that received the transfer?
～スペイン語版とポルトガル語版は略～
LACNICMeeting前なので積極的にまとめが出されています。
LACNICは年一回のMeetingなのでここで決めたいでしょうからね。
Subject: [LACNIC/Politicas] Summary week of 13th to 19th April 2009 -
Sum?rio das discuss?es semana de 13 a 19 de abril - Resumen
discusiones seman del 13 al 19 de abril
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Portugu?s a continua??o
Espa?ol a continuaci?n.
- ---------------
(English)
Abstract LACNIC Public Policy Mailing list discussion - week of 13th
to 19th April 2009.
[LAC-2009-04] Transfer of IPv4 blocks in the LACNIC region.
The debate referring to this policy continued.
You can find the complete policy text at: http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-04-propuesta-en.pdf
Here is an abstract of the comments on the mailing list:
[Christian O'Flaherty - 16th April 2009] - ?What about the legacy
space? These blocks were allocated previously to the creation of the
RIRs, are they included in this policy??
[Francisco Arias - 17th April 2009] - "We did not considered
explicitly the legacy resources, but I believe that the idea would be
for them to be subject to transfers. However, when transferred they
should stop being legacy resources?
[Francisco Arias - 18th April 2009] - ?The last point in policy
proposal states: 2.3.2.18.9 - The receiving entity must comply with
all LACNIC policies in force , this point will have the effect that I
was mentioning. ?
[Christian O'Flaherty - 18th April 2009] - ?Would this mean that the
entity that originated the transfer do not need to perform any
previous process? Will everything be the responsibility of the entity
that received the transfer?
～スペイン語版とポルトガル語版は略～
LACNICMeeting前なので積極的にまとめが出されています。
LACNICは年一回のMeetingなのでここで決めたいでしょうからね。
4/15/2009
LACNIC-politicas@Apr 14, 2009
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:28:01 -0300
From: Ricardo Patara
To: "Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC"
Subject: [LACNIC/Politicas] [EN] Summary of Public Policy List
discussions
Message-ID: <7626BE3F-7384-4971-9B7A-A9DF47D06214@lacnic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Summary of Public Policy List discussions from 1st March to 13 April,
2009.
[LAC 2009-02] IPv6 Allocations to ISPs or LIRs with previous IPv4
allocations
Gustavo Lozano Ibarra presented a proposal regarding the distribution
of IPv6 addresses to those LIRs/ISPs that have already received IPv4
allocations without having to justify their applications. The
rationale behind this proposal is that, in order to obtain IPv4
resources, the LIR/ISP already had to provide sufficient justification
of its need for addressing space and therefore the organization
qualifies for receiving IPv6 resources. This contributes to promote
the deployment of IPv6 within the region. A similar policy already
exists for the assignment of provider-independent addresses to end
users.
The full text of the policy can be found at:
ttp://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-02-propuesta-sp.pdf
No comments have been received on the mailing list in relation to this
proposal.
[LAC 2009-03] ASPLAIN Notation for 32-bit ASNs
Blanca G?mez Flores presented a proposal seeking to modify the current
policy for the allocation of autonomous system numbers in order to
adopt the ?asplain? decimal value representation as the textual
notation to use for 32-bit AS numbers (within the decimal range 0 ?
4294967295), abandoning the ?asdot2? format. The rationale behind this
proposal is the almost unanimous support of the use of ?asplain? on
the part of the operator community, as it is the format which is most
compatible with current operating systems, it provides lower
resistance to the deployment and adoption of 32-bit only AS numbers,
and it does not break the regular expression applied to the AS-PATH
attribute. To avoid confusion, a single ?asplain? textual notation is
useful for documentation, systems configuration, reports, and external
tools and information repositories.
The full text of the policy can be found at:
http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-03-propuesta-sp.pdf
No comments have been received on the mailing list in relation to this
proposal.
[LAC-2009-04] Transfer of IPv4 Blocks within the LACNIC Region
Blanca G?mez, Gustavo Lozano, Julio Coss?o and Francisco Arias
presented a proposal regarding the transfer of IPv4 blocks among
different organizations within the region. The rationale of this
proposal states that, faced with the imminent impossibility on the
part of LACNIC of providing IPv4 resources to the members of its
community due to the fact that these resources will soon be depleted,
it is proposed that the transfer of IPv4 address blocks between
members of the LACNIC community be enabled. The authors also consider
that, faced with the possibility of the emergence of an IPv4 resource
transfer market, it is convenient to maintain LACNIC?s Registration
function.
This policy allows the transfer of IPv4 resources among organizations
of the LACNIC region, provided that the receiving organization
justifies the need for said resources based on the policies in force.
In order to avoid the transfer of resources for speculative purposes,
the policy proposes that, once an IPv4 block has been transferred,
said block cannot be transferred again for a period of one year.
Likewise, an organization that transfers IPv4 resources may not
request new allocations/assignments from LACNIC for a period of one
year.
Because of the economic disparities that exist among the different
regions, the transfer of IPv4 resources administrated by LACNIC to
organizations in other regions is expressly forbidden.
The full text of the proposal can be found at:
http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-04-propuesta-sp.pdf
This policy originated major discussions on the policy list. These
discussions can be found at: http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2009-March/thread.html
and http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2009-April/thread.html
The main objection that was raised is that, instead of returning the
resources to LACNIC, this policy would allow direct transfer of
resources among different organizations. A modification to the
original policy was proposed, according to which the organization that
transfers resources must return them to LACNIC, who will be in charge
of assigning them to the candidate at the top of a list of potential
recipients:
?The organization in which the resources originate shall return the
block to LACNIC, who will assign it to the first candidate at the top
of the list of applicants (if the offered block is smaller than the
size requested by the candidate, LACNIC must inquire whether the
candidate is willing to accept a smaller allocation or will ?wait? for
the next available transfer).
In no case may blocks be directly transferred between an originating
and a receiving organization. LACNIC shall decide the assignment of
these resources in accordance with the bylaws and assignment policies
in force, with no intervention on the part of the organization
originating the transfer.?
It was also suggested that all proposals for transferring resources be
disregarded and to focus instead on the return of resources to LACNIC,
providing, if necessary, financial incentives for those who return
resources. The fact that IP addresses have no owner and therefore it
would not be proper for an organization to profit from this resources
was mentioned, something that could happen within the framework of the
direct transfer of resources from one organization to another.
The authors of this policy proposed complementing it with a ?voluntary
return of resources? policy, separate from the ?resource transfer?
policy. On the other hand, it was suggested that any proposal for the
transfer of resources be disregarded and to work on strengthening
existing proposals for voluntary returns, seeking to find incentives
for those organizations that return unutilized resources.
It was also suggested that it would be necessary to analyze the
consequences of these policies from a legal point of view to determine
what type of rights would be violated.
No agreement was reached on the mailing list; discussions continue.
[LAC 2009-05] Allocation of 16-bit only ASNs
Blanca G?mez, Gustavo Lozano, Julio Coss?o and Francisco Arias
presented a proposal regarding the possibility of obtaining 16-bit AS
numbers during the final ASN allocation phase. This AS number
allocation would only be made in exceptional cases, subject to the
presentation of the appropriate technical justification. This proposal
is based on the rationale that technological changes are usually
accompanied by undetected problems and variables. The authors consider
that the impossibility of requesting 16-bit only AS numbers even when
resources are still available goes against the goal of maintaining
Internet stability upheld by the LACNIC community.
The full text of the proposal is available at:
http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-05-propuesta-sp.pdf
No comments have been received on the mailing list in relation to this
proposal.
LACNICのポリシー議論のメーリングリストで議論された話題に関してのサマリ。
3月から4月半ばまで議論されたのは4本。
[LAC 2009-02] IPv6 Allocations to ISPs or LIRs with previous IPv4 allocations
[LAC 2009-03] ASPLAIN Notation for 32-bit ASNs
[LAC-2009-04] Transfer of IPv4 Blocks within the LACNIC Region
[LAC 2009-05] Allocation of 16-bit only ASNs
世界的にもホットなのは2009-04。
From: Ricardo Patara
To: "Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC"
Subject: [LACNIC/Politicas] [EN] Summary of Public Policy List
discussions
Message-ID: <7626BE3F-7384-4971-9B7A-A9DF47D06214@lacnic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed;
delsp=yes
Summary of Public Policy List discussions from 1st March to 13 April,
2009.
[LAC 2009-02] IPv6 Allocations to ISPs or LIRs with previous IPv4
allocations
Gustavo Lozano Ibarra presented a proposal regarding the distribution
of IPv6 addresses to those LIRs/ISPs that have already received IPv4
allocations without having to justify their applications. The
rationale behind this proposal is that, in order to obtain IPv4
resources, the LIR/ISP already had to provide sufficient justification
of its need for addressing space and therefore the organization
qualifies for receiving IPv6 resources. This contributes to promote
the deployment of IPv6 within the region. A similar policy already
exists for the assignment of provider-independent addresses to end
users.
The full text of the policy can be found at:
ttp://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-02-propuesta-sp.pdf
No comments have been received on the mailing list in relation to this
proposal.
[LAC 2009-03] ASPLAIN Notation for 32-bit ASNs
Blanca G?mez Flores presented a proposal seeking to modify the current
policy for the allocation of autonomous system numbers in order to
adopt the ?asplain? decimal value representation as the textual
notation to use for 32-bit AS numbers (within the decimal range 0 ?
4294967295), abandoning the ?asdot2? format. The rationale behind this
proposal is the almost unanimous support of the use of ?asplain? on
the part of the operator community, as it is the format which is most
compatible with current operating systems, it provides lower
resistance to the deployment and adoption of 32-bit only AS numbers,
and it does not break the regular expression applied to the AS-PATH
attribute. To avoid confusion, a single ?asplain? textual notation is
useful for documentation, systems configuration, reports, and external
tools and information repositories.
The full text of the policy can be found at:
http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-03-propuesta-sp.pdf
No comments have been received on the mailing list in relation to this
proposal.
[LAC-2009-04] Transfer of IPv4 Blocks within the LACNIC Region
Blanca G?mez, Gustavo Lozano, Julio Coss?o and Francisco Arias
presented a proposal regarding the transfer of IPv4 blocks among
different organizations within the region. The rationale of this
proposal states that, faced with the imminent impossibility on the
part of LACNIC of providing IPv4 resources to the members of its
community due to the fact that these resources will soon be depleted,
it is proposed that the transfer of IPv4 address blocks between
members of the LACNIC community be enabled. The authors also consider
that, faced with the possibility of the emergence of an IPv4 resource
transfer market, it is convenient to maintain LACNIC?s Registration
function.
This policy allows the transfer of IPv4 resources among organizations
of the LACNIC region, provided that the receiving organization
justifies the need for said resources based on the policies in force.
In order to avoid the transfer of resources for speculative purposes,
the policy proposes that, once an IPv4 block has been transferred,
said block cannot be transferred again for a period of one year.
Likewise, an organization that transfers IPv4 resources may not
request new allocations/assignments from LACNIC for a period of one
year.
Because of the economic disparities that exist among the different
regions, the transfer of IPv4 resources administrated by LACNIC to
organizations in other regions is expressly forbidden.
The full text of the proposal can be found at:
http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-04-propuesta-sp.pdf
This policy originated major discussions on the policy list. These
discussions can be found at: http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2009-March/thread.html
and http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2009-April/thread.html
The main objection that was raised is that, instead of returning the
resources to LACNIC, this policy would allow direct transfer of
resources among different organizations. A modification to the
original policy was proposed, according to which the organization that
transfers resources must return them to LACNIC, who will be in charge
of assigning them to the candidate at the top of a list of potential
recipients:
?The organization in which the resources originate shall return the
block to LACNIC, who will assign it to the first candidate at the top
of the list of applicants (if the offered block is smaller than the
size requested by the candidate, LACNIC must inquire whether the
candidate is willing to accept a smaller allocation or will ?wait? for
the next available transfer).
In no case may blocks be directly transferred between an originating
and a receiving organization. LACNIC shall decide the assignment of
these resources in accordance with the bylaws and assignment policies
in force, with no intervention on the part of the organization
originating the transfer.?
It was also suggested that all proposals for transferring resources be
disregarded and to focus instead on the return of resources to LACNIC,
providing, if necessary, financial incentives for those who return
resources. The fact that IP addresses have no owner and therefore it
would not be proper for an organization to profit from this resources
was mentioned, something that could happen within the framework of the
direct transfer of resources from one organization to another.
The authors of this policy proposed complementing it with a ?voluntary
return of resources? policy, separate from the ?resource transfer?
policy. On the other hand, it was suggested that any proposal for the
transfer of resources be disregarded and to work on strengthening
existing proposals for voluntary returns, seeking to find incentives
for those organizations that return unutilized resources.
It was also suggested that it would be necessary to analyze the
consequences of these policies from a legal point of view to determine
what type of rights would be violated.
No agreement was reached on the mailing list; discussions continue.
[LAC 2009-05] Allocation of 16-bit only ASNs
Blanca G?mez, Gustavo Lozano, Julio Coss?o and Francisco Arias
presented a proposal regarding the possibility of obtaining 16-bit AS
numbers during the final ASN allocation phase. This AS number
allocation would only be made in exceptional cases, subject to the
presentation of the appropriate technical justification. This proposal
is based on the rationale that technological changes are usually
accompanied by undetected problems and variables. The authors consider
that the impossibility of requesting 16-bit only AS numbers even when
resources are still available goes against the goal of maintaining
Internet stability upheld by the LACNIC community.
The full text of the proposal is available at:
http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-05-propuesta-sp.pdf
No comments have been received on the mailing list in relation to this
proposal.
LACNICのポリシー議論のメーリングリストで議論された話題に関してのサマリ。
3月から4月半ばまで議論されたのは4本。
[LAC 2009-02] IPv6 Allocations to ISPs or LIRs with previous IPv4 allocations
[LAC 2009-03] ASPLAIN Notation for 32-bit ASNs
[LAC-2009-04] Transfer of IPv4 Blocks within the LACNIC Region
[LAC 2009-05] Allocation of 16-bit only ASNs
世界的にもホットなのは2009-04。
3/27/2009
LACNIC-politicas@Mar 26, 2009
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:13:40 -0300
From: Nicolas Antoniello
Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Transferencias de bloques IPv4 en la
region
To: Lista para discusi?n de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Estimados,
Viendo el texto de la pol?tica:
"8.4 Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses
For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, authorized resource
holders served by ARIN may designate a recipient for number resources they
release to ARIN.
Number resources may only be received under RSA in the exact amount
which can be justified under ARIN resource-allocation policies."
Tal vez no estoy interpretando correctamente el texto, pero creo que de el
se desprende que quien tendr? la potestad de decidir quien es el
destinatario de los bloques liberados es justamente quien libera las
direcciones... y es eso con lo que discrepo.
Justamente en la propuesta de modificaci?n que les hac?a a la pol?tica de
transferencia propuesta aqu? se explicitaba que (en mi opini?n) debe ser el
RIR qui?n asigne los recursos liberados y nunca la entidad que los libera
(al igual que deber?a ser ARIN en este caso). De tal forma, se atender?an
las peticiones de direcciones en el orden en que se solicitan y no en el
orden que quien las libera desee, "democratizando" a?n m?s el proceso de
re-asignaci?n.
Saludos,
Nicolas.
P.D.: Desconozco tambi?n la raz?n por la cual la pol?tica fue votada en un
marco de "emergencia" por ARIN. Tal vez alguien pueda arrojar luz al
respecto.
ARIN地域でのIPv4移転に関する議論について。
LACNIC地域でも疑念が。
From: Nicolas Antoniello
Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Transferencias de bloques IPv4 en la
region
To: Lista para discusi?n de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Estimados,
Viendo el texto de la pol?tica:
"8.4 Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses
For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, authorized resource
holders served by ARIN may designate a recipient for number resources they
release to ARIN.
Number resources may only be received under RSA in the exact amount
which can be justified under ARIN resource-allocation policies."
Tal vez no estoy interpretando correctamente el texto, pero creo que de el
se desprende que quien tendr? la potestad de decidir quien es el
destinatario de los bloques liberados es justamente quien libera las
direcciones... y es eso con lo que discrepo.
Justamente en la propuesta de modificaci?n que les hac?a a la pol?tica de
transferencia propuesta aqu? se explicitaba que (en mi opini?n) debe ser el
RIR qui?n asigne los recursos liberados y nunca la entidad que los libera
(al igual que deber?a ser ARIN en este caso). De tal forma, se atender?an
las peticiones de direcciones en el orden en que se solicitan y no en el
orden que quien las libera desee, "democratizando" a?n m?s el proceso de
re-asignaci?n.
Saludos,
Nicolas.
P.D.: Desconozco tambi?n la raz?n por la cual la pol?tica fue votada en un
marco de "emergencia" por ARIN. Tal vez alguien pueda arrojar luz al
respecto.
ARIN地域でのIPv4移転に関する議論について。
LACNIC地域でも疑念が。
3/17/2009
LACNIC-politicas@Mar 16, 2009
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:11:35 -0300
From: Nicolas Antoniello
Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Comentario a Propuesta Transferencias
de bloques IPv4 dentro de la regi?n LACNIC
To: Lista para discusio n de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Estimados,
Agrego al intercambio de ideas:
En la pol?tica no se menciona (al menos no he visto) referencia alguna
a si la fuente de direcciones IP puede percibir beneficios econ?micos
directos consecuencia de la transferencia. Creo que este es el punto
delicado en el asunto y vale la pena una discusi?n al respecto para
conocer la opini?n y puntos de vista de los participantes de esta
lista.
En lo personal, a priori, la pol?tica planteada parece bastante
justificable y neutral, pero yo agregar?a un par de p?rrafos
referentes a 2 aspectos:
1- Creo que la transferencia NO debe ser directa entre entidades, sino
que la fuente deber?a devolver los bloques a LACNIC, qui?n ser?a la
responsable de asignarlos en el orden en que fueron solicitados (para
que no se especule entre los posibles destinatarios).
En resumen, propongo agregar que las asignaciones de los bloques de
los oferentes sean estrictamente en el orden que se encuentra en la
lista de solicitantes y que sea realizada por LACNIC y nunca
directamente por el oferente.
En resumen, el oferente retornar? (devolver?) el bloque a LACNIC y
esta asiganr? al primer candidato en la lista (si la oferta de bloque
fuese menor a lo solicitado por el camdidato, LACNIC deber?a consultar
al candidato si acepta una delegaci?n menor o si "espera" al pr?ximo
oferente).
2- En todos los casos, creo que debe quedar explicitado que el
oferente no recibir? beneficios econ?micos directos por parte del
receptor de los bloques. En todo caso, habr?a que estudiar una
pol?tica de LACNIC para "fomentar" la devoluci?n de bloques de parte
de quienes est?n en posibilidad de "devolverlos".
?Que opinan?
Fraternos saludos,
Nicolas.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Erick Iriarte Ahon
wrote:
> De mi mayor consideracion
>
> La siguiente es un comentario a la propuesta:
> Transferencias de bloques IPv4 dentro de la
> regi?n LACNIC, presentada por: Blanca G?mez,
> Gustavo Lozano, Julio Coss?o, Francisco Arias
> Ver: http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-04-propuesta-sp.pdf
>
> Pues... voy a hacer tres comentarios
>
> 1. debemos revisar el dialogo que se dio, a raiz
> de un mensaje de Christian O'Flaherty
> (http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2008-March/012325.html),
> que termino en la creacion de una lista legal
> (que se cerro, y que quizas sea interesante
> volver a crear, para hablar de estos temas, como
> son "contratos, derechos y obligaciones que
> surgen desde la delegacion de los numeros IP".
>
> 1a. Aun a pena de caer un poco mas "abogadil" de
> lo normal, sugiero puedan leer las cadenas de mensajes de:
>
> http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2008-March/012330.html
> http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2008-March/012340.html
>
> Creo que es relevante para el dialogo de esta propuesta.
>
>
> 2. El hecho que hayamos pasado por un inicio
> tecnico, no deja que los hechos y relaciones que
> tenemos ahora (pagos por delegacion,
> transferencias entre empresas, uso de ips, etc.),
> sean relaciones juridicas, con consecuencias
> tanto de responsabilidad por parte de los
> relacionados en el contrato asi como de los
> usuarios (basta con mirar como se habla de IPs en
> legislacion de cybercrimen, proteccion de datos
> personales, acceso a la informacion publica, como
> se hacen regulaciones sobre promocion de tal o cual version, etc.)
>
> 3. Si bien se puede seguir andando sin dilucidar
> si es un bien, un servicio, una cosa, un derecho,
> o que es lo que es, resultara cada vez mas
> complejo analizar temas que afecten la "posesion"
> del numero ip sin establecer su naturaleza
> juridica, y como se enfrenta a las leyes (que
> aunque hechas por abogados, tambien somos humanos).
>
> Saludos
>
> Erick
>
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas@lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>
ラテンアメリカ地域でもIPアドレスの移転について議論中。
全世界的に同じことを話しているのだが・・・
アフリカ、南アジア、ラテンアメリカ地域は絶対的に割り振られたIPアドレスが少ない。
北米、ヨーロッパ地域、日本は比較的豊富にある状態。
必然的に議論の内容というか方向性というか色あいというかが異なる。
From: Nicolas Antoniello
Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Comentario a Propuesta Transferencias
de bloques IPv4 dentro de la regi?n LACNIC
To: Lista para discusio n de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Estimados,
Agrego al intercambio de ideas:
En la pol?tica no se menciona (al menos no he visto) referencia alguna
a si la fuente de direcciones IP puede percibir beneficios econ?micos
directos consecuencia de la transferencia. Creo que este es el punto
delicado en el asunto y vale la pena una discusi?n al respecto para
conocer la opini?n y puntos de vista de los participantes de esta
lista.
En lo personal, a priori, la pol?tica planteada parece bastante
justificable y neutral, pero yo agregar?a un par de p?rrafos
referentes a 2 aspectos:
1- Creo que la transferencia NO debe ser directa entre entidades, sino
que la fuente deber?a devolver los bloques a LACNIC, qui?n ser?a la
responsable de asignarlos en el orden en que fueron solicitados (para
que no se especule entre los posibles destinatarios).
En resumen, propongo agregar que las asignaciones de los bloques de
los oferentes sean estrictamente en el orden que se encuentra en la
lista de solicitantes y que sea realizada por LACNIC y nunca
directamente por el oferente.
En resumen, el oferente retornar? (devolver?) el bloque a LACNIC y
esta asiganr? al primer candidato en la lista (si la oferta de bloque
fuese menor a lo solicitado por el camdidato, LACNIC deber?a consultar
al candidato si acepta una delegaci?n menor o si "espera" al pr?ximo
oferente).
2- En todos los casos, creo que debe quedar explicitado que el
oferente no recibir? beneficios econ?micos directos por parte del
receptor de los bloques. En todo caso, habr?a que estudiar una
pol?tica de LACNIC para "fomentar" la devoluci?n de bloques de parte
de quienes est?n en posibilidad de "devolverlos".
?Que opinan?
Fraternos saludos,
Nicolas.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Erick Iriarte Ahon
> De mi mayor consideracion
>
> La siguiente es un comentario a la propuesta:
> Transferencias de bloques IPv4 dentro de la
> regi?n LACNIC, presentada por: Blanca G?mez,
> Gustavo Lozano, Julio Coss?o, Francisco Arias
> Ver: http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-04-propuesta-sp.pdf
>
> Pues... voy a hacer tres comentarios
>
> 1. debemos revisar el dialogo que se dio, a raiz
> de un mensaje de Christian O'Flaherty
> (http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2008-March/012325.html),
> que termino en la creacion de una lista legal
> (que se cerro, y que quizas sea interesante
> volver a crear, para hablar de estos temas, como
> son "contratos, derechos y obligaciones que
> surgen desde la delegacion de los numeros IP".
>
> 1a. Aun a pena de caer un poco mas "abogadil" de
> lo normal, sugiero puedan leer las cadenas de mensajes de:
>
> http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2008-March/012330.html
> http://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2008-March/012340.html
>
> Creo que es relevante para el dialogo de esta propuesta.
>
>
> 2. El hecho que hayamos pasado por un inicio
> tecnico, no deja que los hechos y relaciones que
> tenemos ahora (pagos por delegacion,
> transferencias entre empresas, uso de ips, etc.),
> sean relaciones juridicas, con consecuencias
> tanto de responsabilidad por parte de los
> relacionados en el contrato asi como de los
> usuarios (basta con mirar como se habla de IPs en
> legislacion de cybercrimen, proteccion de datos
> personales, acceso a la informacion publica, como
> se hacen regulaciones sobre promocion de tal o cual version, etc.)
>
> 3. Si bien se puede seguir andando sin dilucidar
> si es un bien, un servicio, una cosa, un derecho,
> o que es lo que es, resultara cada vez mas
> complejo analizar temas que afecten la "posesion"
> del numero ip sin establecer su naturaleza
> juridica, y como se enfrenta a las leyes (que
> aunque hechas por abogados, tambien somos humanos).
>
> Saludos
>
> Erick
>
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas@lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>
ラテンアメリカ地域でもIPアドレスの移転について議論中。
全世界的に同じことを話しているのだが・・・
アフリカ、南アジア、ラテンアメリカ地域は絶対的に割り振られたIPアドレスが少ない。
北米、ヨーロッパ地域、日本は比較的豊富にある状態。
必然的に議論の内容というか方向性というか色あいというかが異なる。
登録:
投稿 (Atom)
