[LACNIC/Politicas] Politicas Digest, Vol 151, Issue 7
Carlos G Mendioroz
tron at huapi.ba.ar
Tue Nov 3 19:59:22 BRST 2015
Estoy tentado de poner +1, pero en este caso sería -1 ?
Saludos,
-Carlos
Ricardo Pelaez Negro @ 03/11/2015 18:22 -0300 dixit:
> Hola Nicolas y comunidad en general:
>
> Muchas gracias por la recomendación. Paso a exponer las razones del voto en
> contra:
>
> Cada uno de los que participamos en estas discusiones tenemos varios roles,
> algunos de ellos son ISP, Administradores de Red, Reguladores, Gobiernos,
> Universidades, usuarios finales y muchos otros. Uno de los más importantes
> en mi opinión es el rol de usuario final. Creo que los usuarios finales
> merecen tener un servicio de Internet de calidad, calidad que se ve
> gravemente afectada por el agotamiento de IPv4 y el precario despliegue de
> IPv6 en nuestra región.
>
> Un aparte de la justificación manifiesta textualmente "La Fase 2 de
> Agotamiento de IPv4 en la región está próxima a terminarse. Esto implica
> que ya no será posible asignar direcciones adicionales IPv4 a los miembros
> actuales y sólo se podrán hacer asignaciones de direcciones IPv4 a los
> nuevos entrantes,* lo cual complicará la situación de los miembros actuales
> que aún no están listos con IPv6.*". Resalto la frase, "... *complicará la
> situación de los miembros actuales*... la siguiente parte explica de manera
> contundente porque llegamos a una situación complicada; ...*porque el
> despliegue IPv6 no está listo*. Extender la fase 2 des-complica la
> situación de los miembros actuales y perjudica a los usuarios finales,
> quienes tendrán que seguir soportando los bien conocidos problemas de CGN,
> NAT, y otros muchos que resolveríamos con el despliegue de IPv6.
>
> Pensando en el usuario final, considero que es pertinente dejar que
> finalice la fase 2 tal y como se aprobó en un comienzo; el espacio
> recuperado se podría trasladar a la fase 3 y para nosotros, los miembros
> actuales solo resta asumir el reto de desplegar IPv6, para que la situación
> deje de ser complicada.
>
> Saludos cordiales,
>
> Ricardo Peláez Negro
> Centro de Gestión de Redes
> Universidad de Ibagué
> Tel: 57 8 2709400 Ext.408
>
>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:23:24 -0300
>> From: Nicolas Antoniello <nantoniello at gmail.com>
>> To: Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC
>> <politicas at lacnic.net>
>> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Politicas Digest, Vol 151, Issue 5
>> Message-ID:
>> <CADHEbK8zLc=
>> G1moNODOsCZm4iic9fVtbx_5-yobTtYTC2h37CA at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>
>> Hola Ricardo,
>>
>> Dado que estamos en per?odo de ?ltimos comentarios, si alguien se opone a
>> la pol?tica deber?a argumentar las razones para que los Moderadores y la
>> Comunidad en general tenga en cuenta los mismos. Si simplemente pones que
>> est?s en contra ser? muy dif?cil tenerlo en cuenta pues al no haber
>> argumento no se puede saber la raz?n.
>> Te animas a comentar y explicar las razones por las que no ves positiva
>> esta pol?tica?
>>
>> Fraternos saludos,
>> Nicolas
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Ricardo Pelaez Negro <
>> ricardo.pelaez at unibague.edu.co> wrote:
>>
>>> Buen d?a:
>>>
>>> Estamos en contra.
>>>
>>> Saludos cordiales,
>>>
>>> Ricardo Pel?ez Negro
>>> Centro de Gesti?n de Redes
>>> Universidad de Ibagu?
>>> Tel: 57 8 2709400 Ext.408
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:31 PM, <politicas-request at lacnic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Send Politicas mailing list submissions to
>>>> politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>> politicas-request at lacnic.net
>>>>
>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>> politicas-owner at lacnic.net
>>>>
>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>>> than "Re: Contents of Politicas digest..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Today's Topics:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Re: Llamado a consenso LAC-2015-6 //Chamada ao consenso
>>>> LAC-2015-6 //LAC-2015-6: Call for Consensus (Juan P. Rivera)
>>>> 2. Re: Politicas Digest, Vol 151, Issue 3 (Edmundo Cazarez Lopez)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 1
>>>> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:11:51 +0000
>>>> From: "Juan P. Rivera" <jprivera at cwc.com>
>>>> To: Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC
>>>> <politicas at lacnic.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Llamado a consenso LAC-2015-6
>>>> //Chamada ao consenso LAC-2015-6 //LAC-2015-6: Call for
>> Consensus
>>>> Message-ID: <E43B887829CAEF44AB59FB2CEB45FACA015E88EDBB at executor2>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>>
>>>> Estoy a Favor.
>>>>
>>>> Saludos,
>>>>
>>>> Juan Pablo Rivera.
>>>> Ingeniero IP/MPLS Senior
>>>> jprivera at cwc.com?| <http://jprivera@cwc.com?%7C> Office:
>> 502-2384-4540 | Mov: 502-4033-3223 | Skype:
>>>> jpriveras
>>>> Av. La Reforma 9-55 Zona 10,? Edificio Reforma 10 Nivel 5, Oficina 510
>>>> www.cwcbusiness.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cable & Wireless Communications Plc is a company registered in England
>> &
>>>> Wales with number:
>>>> 07130199. Registered office: 62 - 65 Chandos Place, London WC2N 4HG.
>>>> Confidentiality Notice: This email message and any files transmitted
>> with
>>>> it may contain confidential information intended only for the person(s)
>>> to
>>>> whom this email is addressed. If you have received this email in error,
>>>> please notify the sender immediately by phone or email and destroy the
>>>> original message without making a copy. Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>>>> De: Politicas [mailto:politicas-bounces at lacnic.net] En nombre de
>> Carlos
>>>> Jose
>>>> Enviado el: domingo, 01 de noviembre de 2015 11:33 a. m.
>>>> Para: politicas at lacnic.net
>>>> Asunto: [LACNIC/Politicas] Llamado a consenso LAC-2015-6 //Chamada ao
>>>> consenso LAC-2015-6 //LAC-2015-6: Call for Consensus
>>>>
>>>> Estimados Miembros
>>>>
>>>> A partir del dia de hoy comienza el periodo de llamado a consenso de la
>>>> politica LAC-2015-6: Modificaci?n de Alcance de Fase 2 de Agotamiento
>> de
>>>> IPv4 en la Region, con una duracion de al menos de 14 dias.
>>>>
>>>> Este consenso se llevara a cabo en la presente la lista de discusion,
>> por
>>>> lo que invitamos a todos a participar expresando sus opiniones y
>>>> comentarios a favor o en contra de la aprobacion de la propuesta
>> enviada.
>>>>
>>>> Los argumentos a favor de esta politica son:
>>>> --Ampliar este pool no afectaria la cantidad de direcciones para nuevos
>>>> entrantes.
>>>> --De seguir el comportamiento de asignaciones actual, el pool para
>> nuevos
>>>> miembros se agotaria aproximadamente en 2022.
>>>> --El asignar un maximo de /22 cada 6 meses no deberia afectar el
>>>> despliegue de IPv6.
>>>> --No es necesario modificar el punto 11.3 para realizar la ampliacion.
>>>>
>>>> Los argumentos recibidos en contra o para optimizar esta politica son:
>>>> --Se deberia validar que se implementa IPv6 para poder recibir IP de
>> este
>>>> pool.
>>>> --Mientras se pueda asignar direcciones IPv4 se retrasara el despliegue
>>> de
>>>> IPv6.
>>>> --Por la experiencias de otros RIR el seguir ampliando esta reserva es
>> un
>>>> esfuerzo innecesario que deberia enfocarse en desplegar IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> Saludos,
>>>>
>>>> Alex Ojeda
>>>> Carlos Plasencia
>>>> Moderadores del Foro Publico de Politica.
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Chamada ao consenso LAC-2015-6
>>>>
>>>> Prezados Membros
>>>>
>>>> A partir do dia de hoje come?a o per?odo de chamada ao consenso da
>>>> pol?tica LAC-2015-6: Altera??o do alcance da Fase 2 do esgotamento de
>>> IPv4
>>>> na regi?o, com uma dura??o de pelo menos 14 dias.
>>>>
>>>> Este consenso ser? realizado atrav?s desta lista de discuss?o, pelo que
>>>> convidamos voc?s a participarem expressando suas opini?es e
>> coment?rios a
>>>> favor ou contra de aprovar a proposta enviada.
>>>>
>>>> Os argumentos a favor desta pol?tica s?o:
>>>> -- Ampliar este pool n?o afetaria o n?mero de endere?os para novos
>>>> entrantes.
>>>> -- De seguir o comportamento atual das designa??es, o pool para novos
>>>> membros estaria esgotado por volta de 2022.
>>>> -- Designar um m?ximo de /22 cada 6 meses n?o deveria afetar a
>>>> implementa??o do IPv6.
>>>> -- N?o ? necess?rio alterar o ponto 11.3 para que seja realizada a
>>>> amplia??o.
>>>>
>>>> Os argumentos recebidos contra ou para aperfei?oar esta pol?tica s?o:
>>>> -- Para poder receber IP deste pool deveria validar-se que seja
>>>> implementado o IPv6.
>>>> -- Enquanto puderem ser designados endere?os IPv4, a implementa??o do
>>>> IPv6 ficar? demorada.
>>>> -- Pelas experi?ncias de outros RIR, continuar ampliando esta reserva ?
>>> um
>>>> esfor?o desnecess?rio que deveria estar focado na implementa??o do
>> IPv6.
>>>>
>>>> Atenciosamente,
>>>>
>>>> Alex Ojeda
>>>> Carlos Plasencia
>>>> Moderadores do F?rum P?blico de Pol?ticas
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> LAC-2015-6: Call for Consensus
>>>>
>>>> Dear Members,
>>>>
>>>> The call for consensus on policy LAC-2015-6: Modify the scope of IPv4
>>>> Exhaustion Phase 2 for the region opens today and will last for a
>> period
>>> of
>>>> at least 14 days.
>>>>
>>>> Consensus will be confirmed on this discussion list, so we invite you
>> all
>>>> to participate by expressing your points of view and comments in favor
>> or
>>>> against the approval of the proposal as it was submitted.
>>>>
>>>> The following arguments have been expressed in favor of this policy
>>>> proposal:
>>>> -- Increasing the size of this pool will not affect the number of
>>>> addresses for new entrants.
>>>> -- If current assignment trends continue, the pool for new members will
>>>> run out approximately in 2022.
>>>> -- Assigning a maximum of a /22 every six months should not affect IPv6
>>>> deployment.
>>>> -- Increasing the size of this pool does not require modifying section
>>>> 11.3.
>>>>
>>>> The following arguments have been stated against this policy proposal
>> or
>>>> by those suggesting its optimization:
>>>> -- To receive addresses from this pool, IPv6 implementation should be
>>>> validated.
>>>> -- IPv6 deployment will be delayed as long as IPv4 assignments are
>>>> available.
>>>> -- The experience of other RIRs shows that continuing to expand this
>>>> reserve is a needless effort which should instead focus on IPv6
>>> deployment.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Alex Ojeda
>>>> Carlos Plasencia
>>>> Public Policy Forum Chairs
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 2
>>>> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 18:30:56 +0000
>>>> From: Edmundo Cazarez Lopez <ecazarez at nic.mx>
>>>> To: Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC
>>>> <politicas at lacnic.net>
>>>> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Politicas Digest, Vol 151, Issue 3
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> <
>> 670535144F350B449F15DC2473C46AD50B069B3D at EXCHANGE-AX.nic.com.mx
>>>>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>>
>>>> Hola Rafael,
>>>>
>>>> Gracias por tus comentarios.
>>>>
>>>> La propuesta LAC-2015-6 ?nicamente contempla extender la reserva de la
>>>> "Fase 2".
>>>>
>>>> ?Tienes alguna idea o propuesta de como impulsar la adopci?n de IPv6?
>>>> Igual podr?an plantearse como propuestas de pol?ticas.
>>>>
>>>> Si requieres alguna orientaci?n al respecto de c?mo formular una
>>>> propuesta, con gusto puedo ayudarte.
>>>>
>>>> Saludos.
>>>> -- Edmundo.
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Politicas [mailto:politicas-bounces at lacnic.net] On Behalf Of
>>>> Rafael
>>>>> Enrique Frias Flores
>>>>> Sent: martes, 03 de noviembre de 2015 12:04 p.m.
>>>>> To: politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Politicas Digest, Vol 151, Issue 3
>>>>>
>>>>> estoy de acuerdo en:
>>>>> 1) poner pol?ticas para aquellos que requieren mas direcciones IPv4
>>>> tambi?n
>>>>> implementen versi?n IPv6 para darles direccionamiento en IPv4.
>>>>> 2) Establecer pol?ticas para que los Usuarios,ISP y otros que tienen
>>> gran
>>>>> cantidad de recursos en IPv4 implementen IPv6.
>>>>>
>>>>> por que veo innecesario y costoso seguir trabajando en para poder
>>> seguir
>>>>> dando IPv4 si este ya es obsoleto e/o insuficiente. Y de esta manera
>>>> impulsar
>>>>> el uso de IPv6 y no tratar de prologar el uso de IPv4
>>>>>
>>>>> Saludos
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafael Enrique Fr?as Flores
>>>>>
>>>>> Saludos
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafael Enrique Fr?as Flores
>>>>> Telecomunicaciones - DSyTI
>>>>> Universidad Aut?noma de Tlaxcala
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-11-03 8:00 GMT-06:00 <politicas-request at lacnic.net>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Send Politicas mailing list submissions to
>>>>>> politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>>>> politicas-request at lacnic.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>>>> politicas-owner at lacnic.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>>>>> than "Re: Contents of Politicas digest..."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today's Topics:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Re: Llamado a consenso LAC-2015-6 //Chamada ao consenso
>>>>>> LAC-2015-6 //LAC-2015-6: Call for Consensus (Cleber Medeiros)
>>>>>> 2. Re: Llamado a consenso LAC-2015-6 //Chamada ao consenso
>>>>>> LAC-2015-6 //LAC-2015-6: Call for Consensus (Leonardo
>> Nogueira
>>>>>> Duarte)
>>>>>> 3. Re: Llamado a consenso LAC-2015-6 //Chamada ao consenso
>>>>>> LAC-2015-6 //LAC-2015-6: Call for Consensus (Nicolas
>>> Antoniello)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message: 1
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:18:32 -0300
>>>>>> From: Cleber Medeiros <cleber at toolsnet.com.br>
>>>>>> To: Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC
>>>>>> <politicas at lacnic.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Llamado a consenso LAC-2015-6
>>>>>> //Chamada ao consenso LAC-2015-6 //LAC-2015-6: Call for
>>>>>> Consensus
>>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>> <CADrYuhKAOAMV-O-p0VH=
>>>>>> n9sWYhC7VOjPKZ1eLepK1v1X4Ti3Hg at mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Estou a favor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * Nossa Miss?o:* "Ser uma ferramenta que utiliza a tecnologia
>> para
>>>>>> trazer desenvolvimento e
>>>>>> oportunidades ? sociedade, vendendo produtos e servi?os que
>>>>>> atendam e superem as
>>>>>> expectativas de nossos clientes."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-11-03 9:09 GMT-03:00 Michell Antunes <michell at certto.com.br>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apoiado.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [[]]'s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2015-11-03 9:54 GMT-02:00 Ricardo A K Loiola <
>> alankardec at gmail.com
>>>> :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3 de nov de 2015, at 08:43, Juan Alejo Peirano <
>>>>>>>> juan.alejo.peirano at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Estoy a favor.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Saludos!
>>>>>>>>> El 03/11/2015 08:32, "Ricardo Patara" <patara at registro.br>
>>>> escribi?:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Estoy a favor
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ricardo Patara
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 01-11-2015 15:32, Carlos Jose wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Estimados Miembros
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A partir del dia de hoy comienza el periodo de llamado a
>>>>>>>>>>> consenso
>>>>>> de
>>>>>>> la
>>>>>>>>>>> politica
>>>>>>>>>>> LAC-2015-6: Modificaci?n de Alcance de Fase 2 de
>> Agotamiento
>>>>>>>>>>> de
>>>>>> IPv4
>>>>>>>> en la
>>>>>>>>>>> Region, con una duracion de al menos de 14 dias.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Este consenso se llevara a cabo en la presente la lista de
>>>>>> discusion,
>>>>>>>> por
>>>>>>>>>>> lo que
>>>>>>>>>>> invitamos a todos a participar expresando sus opiniones y
>>>>>>> comentarios a
>>>>>>>>>>> favor o
>>>>>>>>>>> en contra de la aprobacion de la propuesta enviada.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Los argumentos a favor de esta politica son:
>>>>>>>>>>> --Ampliar este pool no afectaria la cantidad de direcciones
>>>>>>>>>>> para
>>>>>>> nuevos
>>>>>>>>>>> entrantes.
>>>>>>>>>>> --De seguir el comportamiento de asignaciones actual, el
>> pool
>>>>>>>>>>> para
>>>>>>>> nuevos
>>>>>>>>>>> miembros se agotaria aproximadamente en 2022.
>>>>>>>>>>> --El asignar un maximo de /22 cada 6 meses no deberia
>> afectar
>>>>>>>>>>> el despliegue de IPv6.
>>>>>>>>>>> --No es necesario modificar el punto 11.3 para realizar la
>>>>>>> ampliacion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Los argumentos recibidos en contra o para optimizar esta
>>>>>>>>>>> politica
>>>>>>> son:
>>>>>>>>>>> --Se deberia validar que se implementa IPv6 para poder
>>> recibir
>>>>>>>>>>> IP
>>>>>> de
>>>>>>>> este
>>>>>>>>>>> pool.
>>>>>>>>>>> --Mientras se pueda asignar direcciones IPv4 se retrasara
>> el
>>>>>>> despliegue
>>>>>>>>>>> de IPv6.
>>>>>>>>>>> --Por la experiencias de otros RIR el seguir ampliando esta
>>>>>>>>>>> reserva
>>>>>>> es
>>>>>>>> un
>>>>>>>>>>> esfuerzo innecesario que deberia enfocarse en desplegar
>> IPv6.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Saludos,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alex Ojeda
>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos Plasencia
>>>>>>>>>>> Moderadores del Foro Publico de Politica.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> --- Chamada ao consenso LAC-2015-6
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Prezados Membros
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A partir do dia de hoje come?a o per?odo de chamada ao
>>>>>>>>>>> consenso da pol?tica
>>>>>>>>>>> LAC-2015-6: Altera??o do alcance da Fase 2 do esgotamento
>> de
>>>>>>>>>>> IPv4
>>>>>> na
>>>>>>>>>>> regi?o, com
>>>>>>>>>>> uma dura??o de pelo menos 14 dias.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Este consenso ser? realizado atrav?s desta lista de
>>> discuss?o,
>>>>>>>>>>> pelo
>>>>>>> que
>>>>>>>>>>> convidamos voc?s a participarem expressando suas opini?es e
>>>>>>>> coment?rios a
>>>>>>>>>>> favor
>>>>>>>>>>> ou contra de aprovar a proposta enviada.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Os argumentos a favor desta pol?tica s?o:
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Ampliar este pool n?o afetaria o n?mero de endere?os
>> para
>>>>>>>>>>> novos entrantes.
>>>>>>>>>>> -- De seguir o comportamento atual das designa??es, o pool
>>>>>>>>>>> para
>>>>>> novos
>>>>>>>>>>> membros
>>>>>>>>>>> estaria esgotado por volta de 2022.
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Designar um m?ximo de /22 cada 6 meses n?o deveria
>> afetar
>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> implementa??o do IPv6.
>>>>>>>>>>> -- N?o ? necess?rio alterar o ponto 11.3 para que seja
>>>>>>>>>>> realizada a amplia??o.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Os argumentos recebidos contra ou para aperfei?oar esta
>>>>>>>>>>> pol?tica
>>>>>> s?o:
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Para poder receber IP deste pool deveria validar-se que
>>>>>>>>>>> seja implementado o IPv6.
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Enquanto puderem ser designados endere?os IPv4, a
>>>>>>>>>>> implementa??o
>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> IPv6
>>>>>>>>>>> ficar? demorada.
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Pelas experi?ncias de outros RIR, continuar ampliando
>> esta
>>>>>> reserva
>>>>>>>> ? um
>>>>>>>>>>> esfor?o desnecess?rio que deveria estar focado na
>>>>>>>>>>> implementa??o do
>>>>>>>> IPv6.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Atenciosamente,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alex Ojeda
>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos Plasencia
>>>>>>>>>>> Moderadores do F?rum P?blico de Pol?ticas
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> LAC-2015-6: Call for Consensus
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear Members,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The call for consensus on policy LAC-2015-6: Modify the
>> scope
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>> IPv4
>>>>>>>>>>> Exhaustion
>>>>>>>>>>> Phase 2 for the region opens today and will last for a
>> period
>>>>>>>>>>> of at
>>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>>>>>> 14 days.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Consensus will be confirmed on this discussion list, so we
>>>>>>>>>>> invite
>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> participate by expressing your points of view and comments
>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> favor
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>> the approval of the proposal as it was submitted.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The following arguments have been expressed in favor of
>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> policy
>>>>>>>>>>> proposal:
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Increasing the size of this pool will not affect the
>>> number
>>>>>>>>>>> of addresses for new entrants.
>>>>>>>>>>> -- If current assignment trends continue, the pool for new
>>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> run out
>>>>>>>>>>> approximately in 2022.
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Assigning a maximum of a /22 every six months should not
>>>>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>> IPv6
>>>>>>>>>>> deployment.
>>>>>>>>>>> -- Increasing the size of this pool does not require
>>> modifying
>>>>>>> section
>>>>>>>>>>> 11.3.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The following arguments have been stated against this
>> policy
>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>>>>> those suggesting its optimization:
>>>>>>>>>>> -- To receive addresses from this pool, IPv6 implementation
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> validated.
>>>>>>>>>>> -- IPv6 deployment will be delayed as long as IPv4
>>> assignments
>>>>>>>>>>> are available.
>>>>>>>>>>> -- The experience of other RIRs shows that continuing to
>>>>>>>>>>> expand
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> reserve is
>>>>>>>>>>> a needless effort which should instead focus on IPv6
>>>> deployment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Alex Ojeda
>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos Plasencia
>>>>>>>>>>> Public Policy Forum Chairs
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>>>>>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>>>>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>>>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>>>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message: 2
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 11:12:15 -0200
>>>>>> From: "Leonardo Nogueira Duarte" <leo at lsoft.com.br>
>>>>>> To: "Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC"
>>>>>> <politicas at lacnic.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Llamado a consenso LAC-2015-6
>>>>>> //Chamada ao consenso LAC-2015-6 //LAC-2015-6: Call for
>>>>>> Consensus
>>>>>> Message-ID: <op.x7i0aptmrt5w54 at leonardo.lsoft>
>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed;
>>>>>> delsp=yes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Estoy a favor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leonardo Nogueira Duarte
>>>>>> LSoft - Informatica e Internet Ltda
>>>>>> ASN 263401
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Em Sun, 01 Nov 2015 15:32:59 -0200, Carlos Jose
>>>>>> <carlos.plasencia at outlook.com> escreveu:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Estimados Miembros
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A partir del dia de hoy comienza el periodo de llamado a consenso
>>> de
>>>>>>> la politica LAC-2015-6: Modificaci?n de Alcance de Fase 2 de
>>>>>>> Agotamiento de
>>>>>>> IPv4 en la Region, con una duracion de al menos de 14 dias.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Este consenso se llevara a cabo en la presente la lista de
>>>>>>> discusion, por lo que invitamos a todos a participar expresando
>> sus
>>>>>>> opiniones y comentarios a favor o en contra de la aprobacion de
>> la
>>>>> propuesta enviada.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Los argumentos a favor de esta politica son:
>>>>>>> --Ampliar este pool no afectaria la cantidad de direcciones para
>>>>>>> nuevos entrantes.
>>>>>>> --De seguir el comportamiento de asignaciones actual, el pool
>> para
>>>>>>> nuevos miembros se agotaria aproximadamente en 2022.
>>>>>>> --El asignar un maximo de /22 cada 6 meses no deberia afectar el
>>>>>>> despliegue de IPv6.
>>>>>>> --No es necesario modificar el punto 11.3 para realizar la
>>>> ampliacion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Los argumentos recibidos en contra o para optimizar esta politica
>>>> son:
>>>>>>> --Se deberia validar que se implementa IPv6 para poder recibir IP
>>> de
>>>>>>> este pool.
>>>>>>> --Mientras se pueda asignar direcciones IPv4 se retrasara el
>>>>>>> despliegue de IPv6.
>>>>>>> --Por la experiencias de otros RIR el seguir ampliando esta
>> reserva
>>>>>>> es un esfuerzo innecesario que deberia enfocarse en desplegar
>> IPv6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Saludos,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex Ojeda
>>>>>>> Carlos Plasencia
>>>>>>> Moderadores del Foro Publico de Politica.
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Chamada ao consenso LAC-2015-6
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prezados Membros
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A partir do dia de hoje come?a o per?odo de chamada ao consenso
>> da
>>>>>>> pol?tica LAC-2015-6: Altera??o do alcance da Fase 2 do
>> esgotamento
>>>>>>> de
>>>>>>> IPv4 na regi?o, com uma dura??o de pelo menos 14 dias.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Este consenso ser? realizado atrav?s desta lista de discuss?o,
>> pelo
>>>>>>> que convidamos voc?s a participarem expressando suas opini?es e
>>>>>>> coment?rios a favor ou contra de aprovar a proposta enviada.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Os argumentos a favor desta pol?tica s?o:
>>>>>>> -- Ampliar este pool n?o afetaria o n?mero de endere?os para
>> novos
>>>>>>> entrantes.
>>>>>>> -- De seguir o comportamento atual das designa??es, o pool para
>>>>>>> novos membros estaria esgotado por volta de 2022.
>>>>>>> -- Designar um m?ximo de /22 cada 6 meses n?o deveria afetar a
>>>>>>> implementa??o do IPv6.
>>>>>>> -- N?o ? necess?rio alterar o ponto 11.3 para que seja realizada
>> a
>>>>>>> amplia??o.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Os argumentos recebidos contra ou para aperfei?oar esta pol?tica
>>> s?o:
>>>>>>> -- Para poder receber IP deste pool deveria validar-se que seja
>>>>>>> implementado o IPv6.
>>>>>>> -- Enquanto puderem ser designados endere?os IPv4, a
>> implementa??o
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> IPv6 ficar? demorada.
>>>>>>> -- Pelas experi?ncias de outros RIR, continuar ampliando esta
>>>> reserva ?
>>>>>>> um esfor?o desnecess?rio que deveria estar focado na
>> implementa??o
>>>>>>> do IPv6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Atenciosamente,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex Ojeda
>>>>>>> Carlos Plasencia
>>>>>>> Moderadores do F?rum P?blico de Pol?ticas
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> LAC-2015-6: Call for Consensus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Members,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The call for consensus on policy LAC-2015-6: Modify the scope of
>>>>>>> IPv4 Exhaustion Phase 2 for the region opens today and will last
>>> for
>>>>>>> a period of at least 14 days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Consensus will be confirmed on this discussion list, so we invite
>>>>>>> you all to participate by expressing your points of view and
>>>>>>> comments in favor or against the approval of the proposal as it
>> was
>>>>> submitted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following arguments have been expressed in favor of this
>> policy
>>>>>>> proposal:
>>>>>>> -- Increasing the size of this pool will not affect the number of
>>>>>>> addresses for new entrants.
>>>>>>> -- If current assignment trends continue, the pool for new
>> members
>>>>>>> will run out approximately in 2022.
>>>>>>> -- Assigning a maximum of a /22 every six months should not
>> affect
>>>>>>> IPv6 deployment.
>>>>>>> -- Increasing the size of this pool does not require modifying
>>>>>>> section 11.3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following arguments have been stated against this policy
>>>>>>> proposal or by those suggesting its optimization:
>>>>>>> -- To receive addresses from this pool, IPv6 implementation
>> should
>>>>>>> be validated.
>>>>>>> -- IPv6 deployment will be delayed as long as IPv4 assignments
>> are
>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>> -- The experience of other RIRs shows that continuing to expand
>>> this
>>>>>>> reserve is a needless effort which should instead focus on IPv6
>>>>>>> deployment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex Ojeda
>>>>>>> Carlos Plasencia
>>>>>>> Public Policy Forum Chairs
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Message: 3
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 10:53:23 -0300
>>>>>> From: Nicolas Antoniello <nantoniello at gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC
>>>>>> <politicas at lacnic.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Llamado a consenso LAC-2015-6
>>>>>> //Chamada ao consenso LAC-2015-6 //LAC-2015-6: Call for
>>>>>> Consensus
>>>>>> Message-ID:
>>>>>> <CADHEbK8JKcL0m5n-MjTLgfP=
>>>>>> gg3L1QjP7QJraX3wRGAHU_G43w at mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Estoy a favor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Saludos,
>>>>>> Nicolas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2015-11-01 14:32 GMT-03:00 Carlos Jose <
>> carlos.plasencia at outlook.com
>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Estimados Miembros
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A partir del dia de hoy comienza el periodo de llamado a consenso
>>> de
>>>>>>> la politica LAC-2015-6: Modificaci?n de Alcance de Fase 2 de
>>>>>>> Agotamiento de
>>>>>>> IPv4 en la Region, con una duracion de al menos de 14 dias.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Este consenso se llevara a cabo en la presente la lista de
>>>>>>> discusion, por lo que invitamos a todos a participar expresando
>> sus
>>>>>>> opiniones y comentarios a favor o en contra de la aprobacion de
>> la
>>>>> propuesta enviada.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Los argumentos a favor de esta politica son:
>>>>>>> --Ampliar este pool no afectaria la cantidad de direcciones para
>>>>>>> nuevos entrantes.
>>>>>>> --De seguir el comportamiento de asignaciones actual, el pool
>> para
>>>>>>> nuevos miembros se agotaria aproximadamente en 2022.
>>>>>>> --El asignar un maximo de /22 cada 6 meses no deberia afectar el
>>>>>>> despliegue de IPv6.
>>>>>>> --No es necesario modificar el punto 11.3 para realizar la
>>>> ampliacion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Los argumentos recibidos en contra o para optimizar esta politica
>>>> son:
>>>>>>> --Se deberia validar que se implementa IPv6 para poder recibir IP
>>> de
>>>>>>> este pool.
>>>>>>> --Mientras se pueda asignar direcciones IPv4 se retrasara el
>>>>>>> despliegue
>>>>>> de
>>>>>>> IPv6.
>>>>>>> --Por la experiencias de otros RIR el seguir ampliando esta
>> reserva
>>>>>>> es un esfuerzo innecesario que deberia enfocarse en desplegar
>> IPv6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Saludos,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex Ojeda
>>>>>>> Carlos Plasencia
>>>>>>> Moderadores del Foro Publico de Politica.
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> Chamada ao consenso LAC-2015-6
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prezados Membros
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A partir do dia de hoje come?a o per?odo de chamada ao consenso
>> da
>>>>>>> pol?tica LAC-2015-6: Altera??o do alcance da Fase 2 do
>> esgotamento
>>>>>>> de
>>>>>> IPv4
>>>>>>> na regi?o, com uma dura??o de pelo menos 14 dias.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Este consenso ser? realizado atrav?s desta lista de discuss?o,
>> pelo
>>>>>>> que convidamos voc?s a participarem expressando suas opini?es e
>>>>>>> coment?rios a favor ou contra de aprovar a proposta enviada.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Os argumentos a favor desta pol?tica s?o:
>>>>>>> -- Ampliar este pool n?o afetaria o n?mero de endere?os para
>> novos
>>>>>>> entrantes.
>>>>>>> -- De seguir o comportamento atual das designa??es, o pool para
>>>>>>> novos membros estaria esgotado por volta de 2022.
>>>>>>> -- Designar um m?ximo de /22 cada 6 meses n?o deveria afetar a
>>>>>>> implementa??o do IPv6.
>>>>>>> -- N?o ? necess?rio alterar o ponto 11.3 para que seja realizada
>> a
>>>>>>> amplia??o.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Os argumentos recebidos contra ou para aperfei?oar esta pol?tica
>>> s?o:
>>>>>>> -- Para poder receber IP deste pool deveria validar-se que seja
>>>>>>> implementado o IPv6.
>>>>>>> -- Enquanto puderem ser designados endere?os IPv4, a
>> implementa??o
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> IPv6 ficar? demorada.
>>>>>>> -- Pelas experi?ncias de outros RIR, continuar ampliando esta
>>>> reserva ?
>>>>>> um
>>>>>>> esfor?o desnecess?rio que deveria estar focado na implementa??o
>> do
>>>>> IPv6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Atenciosamente,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex Ojeda
>>>>>>> Carlos Plasencia
>>>>>>> Moderadores do F?rum P?blico de Pol?ticas
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> LAC-2015-6: Call for Consensus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Members,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The call for consensus on policy LAC-2015-6: Modify the scope of
>>>>>>> IPv4 Exhaustion Phase 2 for the region opens today and will last
>>> for
>>>>>>> a period
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> at least 14 days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Consensus will be confirmed on this discussion list, so we invite
>>>>>>> you all to participate by expressing your points of view and
>>>>>>> comments in favor or against the approval of the proposal as it
>> was
>>>>> submitted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following arguments have been expressed in favor of this
>> policy
>>>>>>> proposal:
>>>>>>> -- Increasing the size of this pool will not affect the number of
>>>>>>> addresses for new entrants.
>>>>>>> -- If current assignment trends continue, the pool for new
>> members
>>>>>>> will run out approximately in 2022.
>>>>>>> -- Assigning a maximum of a /22 every six months should not
>> affect
>>>>>>> IPv6 deployment.
>>>>>>> -- Increasing the size of this pool does not require modifying
>>>>>>> section 11.3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The following arguments have been stated against this policy
>>>>>>> proposal or by those suggesting its optimization:
>>>>>>> -- To receive addresses from this pool, IPv6 implementation
>> should
>>>>>>> be validated.
>>>>>>> -- IPv6 deployment will be delayed as long as IPv4 assignments
>> are
>>>>>>> available.
>>>>>>> -- The experience of other RIRs shows that continuing to expand
>>> this
>>>>>>> reserve is a needless effort which should instead focus on IPv6
>>>>>> deployment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alex Ojeda
>>>>>>> Carlos Plasencia
>>>>>>> Public Policy Forum Chairs
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> End of Politicas Digest, Vol 151, Issue 3
>>>>>> *****************************************
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> La informaci?n contenida en este correo electr?nico y anexos es
>>>>> CONFIDENCIAL. Est? dirigida ?nicamente para el uso exlusivo del
>>>> individuo o
>>>>> entidad a la que fu? enviada y puede contener informaci?n que no es
>> del
>>>>> dominio p?blico. Si ha recibido este correo por error o no es el
>>>> destinatario al
>>>>> que fu? remitido por favor notifique al remitente de inmediato y
>> borre
>>>> este
>>>>> mensaje de su computadora. Cualquier uso, distribuci?n o reproducci?n
>>> de
>>>>> este correo que no sea realizada por el destinatario queda prohibido.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Este mensaje contiene informacion confidencial y se entiende dirigido y
>>>> para uso exclusivo del destinatario. Si recibes este mensaje y no eres
>> el
>>>> destinatario por favor eliminalo, ya que difundir, revelar, copiar o
>>> tomar
>>>> cualquier accion basada en el contenido esta estrictamente prohibido.
>>>> Network Information Center Mexico, S.C., ubicado en Ave. Eugenio Garza
>>> Sada
>>>> 427 L4-6 Col. Altavista, Monterrey, Mexico, C.P. 64840 recaba tus datos
>>>> personales necesarios para: la prestacion, estudio, analisis y mejora
>> del
>>>> servicio, la realizacion de comunicaciones y notificaciones; la
>>>> transferencia y publicacion en los casos aplicables; el cumplimiento de
>>> la
>>>> relacion existente; asi como para la prevencion o denuncia en la
>> comision
>>>> de ilicitos. Si eres colaborador o candidato a colaborador de NIC
>> Mexico,
>>>> tus datos seran utilizados para: la creacion y administracion de tu
>>> perfil
>>>> como profesionista; el otorgamiento de herramientas de trabajo; la
>>>> realizacion de estudios; el otorgamiento de programas y
>>>> beneficios para mejorar tu desarrollo profesional; la gestion y
>>>> administracion de servicios de pago y/o nomina; asi como para contacto
>>> y/o
>>>> notificaciones. Si participas en promociones o en estudios podras dejar
>>> de
>>>> participar. Para mayor informacion revisa el Aviso de Privacidad [
>>>> http://www.nicmexico.mx/static/docs/Aviso_de_Privacidad.pdf]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This message contains confidential information and is intended only for
>>>> the individual named. If you are not the named addressee please delete
>>> it,
>>>> since the dissemination, distribuition, copy or taking any action in
>>>> reliance on the contents is strictly prohibited. Network Information
>>> Center
>>>> Mexico, S.C., located on Av. Eugenio Garza Sada 427 Col. Altavista
>> L4-6,
>>>> Monterrey, Mexico, CP 64840 collects your personal data which is
>>> necessary
>>>> to: provide, research, analyze and improve the service; send
>>> communications
>>>> and notices; transfer and publish your personal data when applicable;
>>>> fulfill the existing relationship; prevent or inform in the commission
>> of
>>>> unlawful acts or events. If the data is processed in your quality of
>>>> candidate or collaborator of NIC Mexico, the purpose of treatment is
>> to:
>>>> create and manage your profile as a professional; provide you with
>>> working
>>>> tools; conduct studies; grant benefits and programs to enhance your
>>>> professional development; manage and administrate pa
>>>> yment services and/or payroll; as well as to contact you. If you
>>>> participate in promotions or surveys you may stop or quit your
>>>> participation at any time. For more information read the Privacy Note [
>>>> http://www.nicmexico.mx/static/docs/Aviso_de_Privacidad.pdf]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Politicas mailing list
>>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> End of Politicas Digest, Vol 151, Issue 5
>>>> *****************************************
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Politicas mailing list
>>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Politicas mailing list
>> Politicas at lacnic.net
>> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> End of Politicas Digest, Vol 151, Issue 7
>> *****************************************
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Politicas mailing list
> Politicas at lacnic.net
> https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
>
--
Carlos G Mendioroz <tron at huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina
More information about the Politicas
mailing list