[LACNIC/Politicas] policy manual section 2.3.2.18 - clarification needed

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Fri Nov 8 16:12:27 -02 2019


HI Mike,


El 8/11/19 16:47, "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com> escribió:

    Hi Jordi,
    
    1. Your language for the automated process of testing for policy compliance includes the word "periodic" which completely changes your implication. You implied this process would happen as a result of staff "feelings" but the word periodic belies that, and implies instead that these automated tests would be run according to a pre-defined time period, not as a result of reports or feelings of malfeasance. I don't think this is a language translation issue, I looked up the Spanish definition.

-> What I meant in my previous email is that today, is that the staff can do it today following actual text in 7.1 "El proceso de recuperación de recursos inicia cuando LACNIC tiene la mencionada evidencia."

This means that they know or have suspicious, or someone tell them. Clearly this is much more subjective and discriminatory (and can mean that a member can get investigated by a claim of a competitor), versus an automated periodic process (without the need to enter in the details, I trust the staff to do it on what they want to check), that is totally objective and not discriminating any member, because the test will run the same for *all*.
    
    2. LACNIC says transferring is okay and they will not revoke address space brought to market. But LACNIC won't allow you to hold on to address space without using it.  What are they going to do if the holder tells LACNIC the blocks are for sale but the desired price hasn't been reached? Pester the holder to take a lower price? Force him to take that price under threat of revocation?

-> I can't answer that. Staff could. My proposal is not changing that at all. If the community tell us "let's change this" whatever is the proposed direction, I'm happy to add it. If the staff tell us "we should clarify it" I'm also happy to add it.
    
    3. You are taking on the admirable task of reconciling and simplifying the policies;  I think you should excise the rdns provision in that effort. I think I may be missing something that led the LACNIC community to include this requirement and would be grateful to learn what is the purpose for requiring rdns? 

-> Honestly, I think is operationally correct and should be done. I don't recall myself having participated in that discussion previously, so happy to heard also opinions from others, and meanwhile, I'm not changing it in this proposal.
    
    From my perspective, it is taking too long for the LACNIC community to understand that you can have utilization requirements and revocations as one potential exhaust strategy, or you can have a transfer market. But you can't have both. That's like making a transition from driving on the right hand side of the road to driving on the left hand side of the road, and deciding the best way is to do it is gradually!

-> Considering the inputs from the staff, I will agree that a further clarification in policy will be good. However, I'm not sure it is convenient to add that to this proposal or in a different one (even if it touch part of the proposed text). Remember that this proposal has already been presented, so it is already up for consensus decision. If we ask for new changes now, it means we need to wait until it is presented at the next meeting before again, checking consensus.
    
    Regards,
    Mike
    
    
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Politicas <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net> On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas
    Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2019 11:26 AM
    To: 'Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC' <politicas at lacnic.net>
    Cc: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
    Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] policy manual section 2.3.2.18 - clarification needed
    
    Hi Mike,
    
    
    El 7/11/19 17:09, "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com> escribió:
    
        Hi Jordi,
        
        I have reviewed the proposal and I can see it is better than the current state of things but leaves a lot to be desired.
        
        I will name two of these things. 
        
        First, this will require the creation and application of a periodic automated system designed to find un-advertised space. 
        I find this objectionable and a waste of money. No other registry has anything like this, 
    
    -> I don't think this is correct and it can be seen in the impact analysis. I think all the registries have it. Sometimes not as a policy, but an internal staff procedure, each one with a different framing, name, etc. LACNIC itself, if I got it correctly, is doing that when they have the feeling that something is not according to policies. Precisely what I'm adding is a way to automate it (within their own scope, not telling when, how, what, etc.), because doing an automation saves resources and make the procedure more objective. So, you don't need to "investigate" a given member (which can be subjective and a false accusation from another member, etc.). I think is a fairer way to proceed and again, cheaper in the longer term.
    
    and the reason they don’t?
        Because IPv4 addresses  have a value, and it is not natural to waste valuable assets. It's as simple and as profound as that.
        As I have mentioned, buyers want clean addresses that are not being routed. This automated system will require less automation to deal with blocks that are up for sale. And if blocks that are up for sale are not subject to revocation, why wouldn't anybody who didn't want to advertise his space simply tell LACNIC that they are up for sale and not being routed for that reason?  It's just not compatible with an Ipv4 marketplace to insist on revocation for utilization.
    
    -> I don't agree, because we already said that transferring is OK, but "holding" them without use "forever" is not. Also, the already existing policies mandate to "announce it within 30 days" (which by the way I'm extending that period as well with the same policy proposal".
        
        Second, why are you requiring rdns? There is probably something technical I am missing, but this seems to be adding on a new reason for possible revocation. As far as I know, rdns is used for two things: smtp and for naming hosts during traceroutes. Can you tell me why this is now grounds for losing an allocation?
    
    -> Because that's already part of the existing policies. I'm not asking anything new, just adjusting the text to support both IPv4 and IPv6 (not just one) and to make it more coherent and when possible, short, instead of repeating the same in every manual section for every possible resource.
        
        If you limited your grounds for revocation to your last three items, I could support the policy as a step forward at least. 
        Those are:
        Repeated and/or continued policy violations.
        Failure to comply with contractual obligations towards LACNIC or its NIRs, including non-payment and document fraud.
        Organizations that have disappeared or fail to respond.
    
    -> Note that I'm not adding nothing that is not already done today by LACNIC. Also note that the text before those points say "There are a number of practices that might". Is not saying that every single lack of compliance ... There is a lot of freedom here, because we all know that the very last resort is resource recovery. We must prefer policies being followed, not recovering if you make a mistake. Repetitive violations are a different thing and I see you also agree here.
    
    -> Nevertheless, I'm of course, happy to heard as many inputs as possible an all the aspects of the proposal.
        
        Regards,
        Mike
        
        
        
        
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Politicas <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net> On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas
        Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2019 8:20 AM
        To: Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC <politicas at lacnic.net>
        Cc: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
        Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] policy manual section 2.3.2.18 - clarification needed
        
        Hi Mike,
        
        Somehow, I agree with your points, and maybe some of them can be clarified by some rewording of manual section 7.
        
        2 is already in the way. 3 is informative, I don't think it is a problem, if 5 is clearer (in addition to Sergio email). Section 7 may help on that.
        
        Related to 1 (and may be other of your points), please, let me know if you don't think that my proposal is already addressing that, or if some specific wording could be improved.
        
        Thanks!
        
        
        
        El 6/11/19 13:54, "Politicas en nombre de Mike Burns" <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de mike at iptrading.com> escribió:
        
            Hi Sergio,
            
            Thanks, I had forgotten that you can get a pre-approval in Lacnic.
            Probably because that information is sort of hidden behind the requirement to login to milacnic.
            
            Per another comment in this thread, the Lacnic transfer market is not fine by any measure. 
            Some steps that might be taken to improve things:
            
            1. Remove revocation threat for utilization from policy and RSA
            2. Implement inter-RIR transfers
            3. Don't ask the reason for the transfer
            4. Put the broker list on the public website where people can find it when they search
            5. Clearly inform the community that selling unused addresses is completely legitimate
            6. Inform those whose addresses are due to be revoked that they have an option to sell them instead
            
            
            These policies are standard at the other trading RIRs.
            
            Regards,
            Mike Burns
             
            
            
            
            
            
            
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Politicas <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net> On Behalf Of Sergio Rojas. . .
            Sent: Monday, November 04, 2019 6:40 AM
            To: 'Lista para discusion de politicas de la comunidad de LACNIC' <politicas at lacnic.net>
            Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] policy manual section 2.3.2.18 - clarification needed
            
            Hi Everyone, Hola a todos
            
            In regarding to the firs paragraph Mike mentioned, there is a service as 
            well in LACNIC region called "List of possible IPv4 transfers", where 
            the receiving organization can be pre-approved base on its 
            justification. For more information: 
            https://www.lacnic.net/2733/2/lacnic/list-of-possible-ipv4-transfers
            
            #español
            En relación al primer párrafo mencionado por Mike, también en LACNIC 
            contamos con un servicio llamado "Lista de posibles transferencias 
            IPv4", donde la organización receptora puede ser preaprobada en base a 
            la justificación enviada. Por mas información: 
            https://www.lacnic.net/2732/1/lacnic/lista-de-posibles-transferencias-ipv4
            
            #portugues
            Em relação ao primeiro parágrafo mencionado por Mike, também em LACNIC 
            contamos com um serviço chamado "Lista de possiveis transferências 
            IPv4", onde a organização receptora pode ser preaprovada em base à 
            justificação enviada. Por mais informação: 
            https://www.lacnic.net/1057/3/lacnic/transfer%C3%AAncia-de-recursos
            
            Saludos,
            
            Sergio Rojas. . .
            
            
            El 1/11/19 a las 17:27, Mike Burns escribió:
            > Hi Jordi,
            >
            > In every RIR the seller initiates the transfer request with the RIR, but buyers can become pre-approved by the RIR prior to the sale in ARIN and APNIC.
            >
            > It doesn't work the way you said, with multiple sellers of all sizes lined up to meet whatever need is determined.
            >
            > I am very grateful to Sergio and the LACNIC staff for clearly describing the freedom LACNIC holders have to transfer idle space. And I hope those who enter the LACNIC market can do so with confidence that LACNIC will not revoke their space if they make a wrong move.
            >
            > Regards,
            > Mike
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > My understanding is that if the deal is for example to transfer a /16, if the buyer doesn't justify the need for that /16, and only justify the need for a /18, the deal price is totally different, and there may be interest in looking for an alternative seller.
            >
            > Mike can tell us, from its experience, if in other RIRs all the analysis is done from a single seller to a single buyer, or if the buyer can simultaneously look for several seller choices, and at the end of the "justification" process decide which one.
            >
            > I think this should be the way from a "business" perspective and this is my reading of the actual policy text in section 2.3.2.18 (which shows an explicit order in the points).
            >
            > I understand that Sergio has responded that my interpretation on this is not the actual internal process, but I wonder if we should consider that as an issue in the current text, in the sense that it can be interpreted in different ways.
            >
            > This is the specific text that tell me that the justification is "first" (debe pasar primero = first must pass):
            >
            > 2.3.2.18.2. Para que una entidad dentro de LACNIC, pueda ser el destinatario de una transferencia, debe pasar ***primero*** por el proceso de justificación de recursos IPv4 ante LACNIC. Es decir, la entidad debe justificar ante LACNIC la distribución/asignación inicial/adicional, según sea el caso, de acuerdo a las políticas vigentes.
            >
            > Regards,
            > Jordi
            > @jordipalet
            >   
            >   
            >
            > El 30/10/19 18:43, "Politicas en nombre de Fernando Frediani" <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de fhfrediani at gmail.com> escribió:
            >
            >      On 30/10/2019 14:36, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas wrote:
            >      > I don't think Fernando is right here, and that may need a tidy up of the actual LACNIC procedure (I'm not sure either if other RIRs follow my rationale, please, keep reading).
            >      >
            >      > In fact, what I was pointing out, is that if we follow STEP by STEP the existing policy, LACNIC doesn't need to know the seller *from the start*. I think it is perfectly fine that a broker has several sellers that may fit a single buyer, and you can:
            >      > 1) Check with LACNIC that the buyer justifies the need.
            >      > 2) Once the need is justified, then the buyer can enter in negotiation with one of the sellers (or even several of them), and agree which one fits better.
            >      
            >      This would be against the interest of the RIR community because its only
            >      propose would be to protect potential sellers, and as said in the
            >      previous message if someone is selling means he doesn't have use for it
            >      anymore, therefore it is the interest of the community that those
            >      address return to the pool if the recipient can't justify them.
            >      There simple solution for it is to transfer only the amount the receipt
            >      has justification for and nobody will be have problems with.
            >      
            >      Fernando
            >      
            >      >
            >      > Regards,
            >      > Jordi
            >      > @jordipalet
            >      >
            >      >
            >      >
            >      > El 30/10/19 18:09, "Politicas en nombre de Mike Burns" <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de mike at iptrading.com> escribió:
            >      >
            >      >      Hi Fernando,
            >      >
            >      >      Thanks for clearing that up. Jordi did say there might be an interpretation issue.
            >      >
            >      >      So you are saying if I decide to sell my block to a buyer, and the buyer fails to justify to LACNIC, then the addresses are returned to LACNIC?
            >      >      This will kill the market, it's an unacceptable risk for any seller.
            >      >
            >      >      Totally against this policy.
            >      >
            >      >      Regards,
            >      >      Mike
            >      >
            >      >
            >      >      -----Original Message-----
            >      >      From: Politicas <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
            >      >      Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 12:55 PM
            >      >      To: politicas at lacnic.net
            >      >      Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta LAC-2019-9
            >      >
            >      >      There is some misinterpretation of what was said on another thread.
            >      >
            >      >      One thing doesn't have to do with the other. One thing is to sell part of assigned resources, and that doesn't necessarily mean the resources were unused until the point(may or may not), but mean they are not needed anymore. Another totally different is someone that deliberately doesn't use resources in order to 'heat their value' for selling. This is a total misuse of IP addresses propose and in this case they must be revoked.
            >      >
            >      >      What has been discussed in another thread was that in my view that when someone declares is transferring resources to another organization he is assuming these resources are not needed anymore for their organization (that's pretty obvious!), and in the case the recipient fails to justify the need for them, they must be recovered to the RIR pool in order to be assigned to someone else who needs and justify usage. While this may not happen automatically it is very much possible for the RIR to trigger section 7.1 in such case.
            >      >
            >      >      Fernando
            >      >
            >      >      On 30/10/2019 13:13, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas wrote:
            >      >      > Hi Mike,
            >      >      >
            >      >      > El 30/10/19 16:20, "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com> escribió:
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      Hi Jordi,
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      Thanks for your reply.
            >      >      >      Again sorry for the English, but I don't really get your first sentence meaning clearly:
            >      >      >      " the staff has confirmed (responding to Fernando questioning), that transfers are in fact, authorizing the fact that you no longer justify the need."
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      Are you saying the LACNIC staff has confirmed that transfers of unused address space is OK?
            >      >      >
            >      >      > ** Unless I misinterpreted it, that's correct. Fernando was arguing that if there is unused space, it must be returned, not transferred, which clearly will mean that we don't need transfer policies. Here is the link to the specific message:
            >      >      >
            >      >      > https://mail.lacnic.net/pipermail/politicas/2019-August/005000.html
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      I know that this is true, having brokered most of the transfers down there, but we find that many participants fear to tell the truth to LACNIC when asked about the purpose of the transfer. We advise them to say they are selling the block to the recipient. But they won't do this because they fear that LACNIC will use their existing contractual right to revoke the space.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      So instead there are stories of partnerships or joint endeavors or things like this, which should not be necessary.  As a broker, can I tell them legitimately  that if LACNIC learns they are no longer using the space, its okay?  Their lawyers say different things after reading the RSA.
            >      >      >
            >      >      > ** I think so! Reproducing here that part of the text:
            >      >      >
            >      >      > "Sobre la segunda consulta, el staff de LACNIC entiende que la
            >      >      > política
            >      >      > 2.3.2.18 fue desarrollada con el espíritu de permitir que una
            >      >      > organización que tenga (o prevea tener) recursos ociosos pueda
            >      >      > transferirlos a otra organización, posibilitando al mismo tiempo
            >      >      > registrar estas transacciones con LACNIC y mantener de esta forma la
            >      >      > calidad de la información contenida en el Registro.
            >      >      >
            >      >      > Son numerosas las situaciones que pueden originar este tipo de
            >      >      > transferencias y no es un requisito de la política explicitar el
            >      >      > motivo por el cual se solicita la misma. Es por esto que durante el
            >      >      > proceso no se profundiza en este tema ni se evalúa iniciar un proceso
            >      >      > de revocación ante un intento de transferencia fallida porque el
            >      >      > receptor no justifica la necesidad de los recursos, sino que el
            >      >      > análisis se concentra en lo que indica la política, que es la
            >      >      > justificación de recursos, verificar la titularidad del recurso a transferir y que esté libre de disputas."
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      I would appreciate it if LACNIC staff came out clearly on this list and immunized potential sellers of unused space from threats of revocation should they seek to bring them to the transfer market.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      This discussion has nothing to do with the requirement of the buyer to demonstrate justified need to LACNIC.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      It's not simply a matter of better documentation in the RSA. The policy says you can sell space but the RSA says if don’t use it you must return it or be subject to revocation.  These are opposites, not just surface issues.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      However, I concur with you that the paltry number of regional transfers are due to reasons other than this seller fear.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      Regards,
            >      >      >      Mike
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      Hi Mike,
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      I understand your point; however, the staff has confirmed (responding to Fernando questioning), that transfers are in fact, authorizing the fact that you no longer justify the need.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      Otherwise, transfers will never be allowed. I think actual efficient utilization is very well reflected also in this proposal.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      This could be, as you said, better documented in the RSA, but this is out of the scope of the PDP.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      I think the lack of transfers in LACNIC is because there aren't too many "free" resources within the region. I'm sure this will change after July 2020, once the inter-RIR policy is in place.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      Regards,
            >      >      >      Jordi
            >      >      >      @jordipalet
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      El 24/10/19 17:20, "Politicas en nombre de Mike Burns" <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de mike at iptrading.com> escribió:
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          Dear list,
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          Sorry for the English.
            >      >      >          I am certainly for updating the ancient text in section 7 of the NRPM as it no longer fits with an Ipv4 market.
            >      >      >          The non-Lacnic market for IPv4 has been a success, it is the largest method of distributing Ipv4 addresses to those who need them.
            >      >      >          In LACNIC, we are behind the other RIRs that instituted markets earlier, and there is policy work that needs to be done to accommodate and foster the IPv4 market.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          First and foremost, ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC have removed the ability to revoke addresses for utilization. The reason for this is very simple, if you take the time to think about it.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          If I want to sell my addresses, LACNIC policy mandates that I continue to utilize them at the same time I am attempting to sell them. As somebody involved in nearly 1,000 market transfers, I can say that buyers normally want un-routed addresses because if they continue to be utilized, the buyer can't be sure they won't be blacklisted the day before transfer, or that all the route advertisements will stop after transfer. If I want to advertise my clean and unused block on the market, I am subject to LACNIC revocation.  This stifles the market.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          What the other RIRs have learned through experience is that threats of revocation for utilization are not as effective at fostering efficient use of address space as the profit motive is.  The profit motive has brought large swathes of unused space to the market to be sold to those who use the space, whereas threats of revocation were less successful in refilling the pool of available Ipv4.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          Maintaining (and in the case of comments here actually adding to) restrictions designed and adopted during the free pool era is a mistake because it works against the market.  This community decided to adopt a market for paid IPv4 transfers as the correct paradigm to handle the era of exhaust. But so far, it has taken only a half-step, and needs to complete this transition.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          I would support this policy if it removed utilization and location issues from the reasons for review.
            >      >      >          Additionally, a change to the contract or Registration Services Agreement should also take place to remove utilization as a reason for revocation.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          Otherwise the LACNIC IPv4 market will remain in it's relatively anemic state and pressures for out-of-policy activity will increase.
            >      >      >          Look at the transfer log for LACNIC after several years of transfers and compare it to any other registry.
            >      >      >          If the community wants a market to handle IPv4 distributions, the results so far are pathetic.
            >      >      >          If the community wants a heavy-handed monitoring and revocation method for handling IPv4 distributions, it is doomed to fail expensively.
            >      >      >          Especially as LACNIC seeks to join the ARIN/RIPE/APNIC market next July, it should be seeking to reconcile its policies with those other RIRs, not insert anti-market policies.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          Regards,
            >      >      >          Mike Burns
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          -----Original Message-----
            >      >      >          From: Politicas <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani
            >      >      >          Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2019 10:27 AM
            >      >      >          To: politicas at lacnic.net
            >      >      >          Subject: Re: [LACNIC/Politicas] Nueva versión de la propuesta
            >      >      > LAC-2019-9
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          Queridos colegas
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          Creo que esta propuesta tiene un buen propósito y tiene la base para ser una propuesta, lo cual es, en mi opinión, una necesidad: actualizar o mejorar y aclarar el texto para guiar a LACNIC y los NIR en una de las tareas más difíciles de lograr, la revocación de recursos.
            >      >      >          Con esto no estoy diciendo que estoy 100% de acuerdo con la integridad del texto, sino que necesitamos, por mas complejo que sea, debatir en detalle y realizar las mejoras necesarias para lograr el objetivo principal de mejorar el texto actual que trata este tema.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          Por ejemplo, aclarar la necesidad de utilizar más del 50% de los recursos en la región y aumentar el plazo para anunciar recursos de 30 a
            >      >      >          90 días son buenos puntos para actualizar el manual de políticas.
            >      >      >          También es bueno dar una definición automática de los recursos IPv6 y ASN que no se han definido hasta ahora (principalmente para ASN de 16 bits).
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          Así que creo que necesitamos "refinar" el texto, enviar nuestras sugerencias específicas sobre cada parte y esperar la colaboración del autor para los cambios que son consensuados por esta comunidad. Y salvo por mi error, creo que hubo pocos mensajes analizando el texto y enviando sugerencias de cambio o eliminación del texto propuesto.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          Sobre la propuesta de dividir en múltiplos, tiendo a tener cierta resistencia porque, en mi opinión, haría aún más difícil avanzar estos cambios. Pero si la comunidad considera necesario no me opondría. Será necesario sin embargo definir exactamente cómo dividirlo en diferentes temas para que ambas propuestas tengan claras sus intenciones.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          En resumen: creo que es necesario actualizar el texto. Quizás todavía el propuesto todavía necesita alguna mejora.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          Saludos Cordiales
            >      >      >          Fernando Frediani
            >      >      >
            >      >      >          On 23/10/2019 18:39, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas wrote:
            >      >      >          > Hola Nico,
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          > Repito lo que le acabo de indicar a Ricardo.
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          > Si queremos avanzar y no ir teniendo mas y mas propuestas, tenemos que madurar como comunidad, y aceptar que algunas propuestas deben ser mas extensas que otras.
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          > Si revisas el PDF que en su momento envié a la lista, a dos columnas, o incluso las diapositivas, verás que puede parecer complejo, pero en realidad no lo es. La gran mayoría de los cambios evitan duplicar textos que ya están, permiten que un texto que hoy "según el manual" solo aplica a IPv4, aplique también a IPv6 y ASN, e inconsistencias parecidas.
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          > La alternativa, es romper la propuesta en 3 o 4 y que el staff nos de varios días para el foro ... y sabemos cual es la respuesta. Insisto en que quejarse de complejidad o extensión no es una justificación razonable para oponerse.
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          > Cuando presenté, esta propuesta, por primera vez, en la lista, hice varias preguntas a la lista. Puedo contar con la mitad de los dedos de una mano las respuestas ...
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          > Saludos,
            >      >      >          > Jordi
            >      >      >          > @jordipalet
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          > El 23/10/19 22:05, "Politicas en nombre de Nicolas Antoniello" <politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de nantoniello at gmail.com> escribió:
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          >      Hola Jordi y todos,
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          >      En mi opinión, luego del Foro Público, al menos a mi me quedó claro que
            >      >      >          >      estas propuestas que son un "ferrocarril" de cambios, movimientos y
            >      >      >          >      correcciones de texto son sumamente difíciles de tratar en conjunto por la
            >      >      >          >      mayoría de las personas (entre las que me incluyo).
            >      >      >          >      Creo que sería mejor dividirla en pequeños cambios e ir tratándolos de a
            >      >      >          >      poco... no hay apuro ni urgencia por realizar estos cambios pues entiendo
            >      >      >          >      que la gran mayoría son una puesta a punto del manual, que siempre es
            >      >      >          >      necesaria y bienvenida.
            >      >      >          >      Sugeriría dividir el "problema" en varios sub problemas, establecer una
            >      >      >          >      prioridad y comenzar a tratarlos de a poco y por separado en la lista...
            >      >      >          >      por ejemplo de a 3 por vez (en lugar de todo al mismo tiempo en una misma
            >      >      >          >      propuesta).
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          >      Saludos,
            >      >      >          >      Nico
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          >      El mié., 23 de oct. de 2019 a la(s) 16:07, Ricardo Patara (
            >      >      >          >      patara at registro.br) escribió:
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          >      > sigo en contra el texto propuesto.
            >      >      >          >      >
            >      >      >          >      > el texto incluye partes de otros párafos y hace más complicado un análisis
            >      >      >          >      > de
            >      >      >          >      > todos los impactos.
            >      >      >          >      >
            >      >      >          >      > especificamente acerca de esa parte de las verificaciones periodicas y
            >      >      >          >      > automatizadas. no veo justificativa.
            >      >      >          >      >
            >      >      >          >      > > Es deshonesto tener un texto que pretenda solo verificar en caso de
            >      >      >          >      > sospechas y sin embargo se verifica también periódicamente.
            >      >      >          >      >
            >      >      >          >      > no, no es así.
            >      >      >          >      > las verificaciones que se hace son de acuerdo a la política vigente.
            >      >      >          >      >
            >      >      >          >      > y incluso veo un problema en el texto, pues indica:
            >      >      >          >      >
            >      >      >          >      > "LACNIC verificará con la organización que recibió la asignación el
            >      >      >          >      > correcto uso del recurso "
            >      >      >          >      >
            >      >      >          >      > "correcto uso del recurso" es muy amplio y seguramente no es nada facil
            >      >      >          >      > asegurar
            >      >      >          >      > eso considerando todos los posibles usos correctos.
            >      >      >          >      >
            >      >      >          >      > --
            >      >      >          >      > Ricardo
            >      >      >          >      >
            >      >      >          >      > > Si lo que crees es que no se debe verificar de forma automatizada,
            >      >      >          >      > ¿Quieres decir que prefieres que sólo se verifique cuando hay indicios, y
            >      >      >          >      > que LACNIC no pueda hacerlo de forma periódica, y por lo tanto, como no hay
            >      >      >          >      > indicios, solo se verificará si hay una denuncia de que algo está
            >      >      >          >      > ocurriendo?
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > > Eso implica cumplir peor con la labor de custodia y por lo tanto con el
            >      >      >          >      > adecuado cumplimiento de las políticas por todos, y por lo tanto, es
            >      >      >          >      > discriminatorio.
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > > Si cualquiera denuncia a su competidor, será verificado. Sino lo hace,
            >      >      >          >      > no será verificado.
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > > Obviamente, es mucho mejor que nadie tenga que denunciar o sospechar, y
            >      >      >          >      > que se haga de forma automatizada.
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > > El 10/10/19 17:25, "Politicas en nombre de Ricardo Patara" <
            >      >      >          >      > politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de patara at registro.br> escribió:
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >      No estoy de acuerdo.
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >      el texto actual indica:
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >      "LACNIC verificará con la organización que recibió la asignación el
            >      >      >          >      > >      correcto uso del recurso cuando cuente con evidencia que permita
            >      >      >          >      > inferir
            >      >      >          >      > >      que posiblemente los recursos de la asignación no están siendo
            >      >      >          >      > >      utilizados o están siendo utilizados incorrectamente."
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >      no se trata de ser oscuro mucho menos "deshonesto", para nada!
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >      si hay indicios de que el uso es incorecto, se verifica.
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >      --
            >      >      >          >      > >      ricardo
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >      Em 10/10/2019 15:26, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via Politicas escreveu:
            >      >      >          >      > >      > A mi me parece que es mas correcto ser honrados y transparentes y
            >      >      >          >      > que haya claridad en que eso lo puede hacer el staff, y dejar a su criterio
            >      >      >          >      > los detalles operacionales (como verificar y en que plazos/periodicidad),
            >      >      >          >      > pero no dejar el texto de tal manera que solo parezca que "si te pillan" te
            >      >      >          >      > van a verificar ...
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      > La "oscuridad" no es un buen amigo en una política.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      > Saludos,
            >      >      >          >      > >      > Jordi
            >      >      >          >      > >      > @jordipalet
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      > El 10/10/19 15:15, "Politicas en nombre de Ricardo Patara" <
            >      >      >          >      > politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de patara at registro.br> escribió:
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     Hola,
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > Esto ha sido tenido en cuenta por el análisis de impacto
            >      >      >          >      > del staff. De hecho, la redacción del texto se ha dejado de tal manera que
            >      >      >          >      > no se especifican plazos, periodicidad, etc., para que el staff diseñe la
            >      >      >          >      > operativa que considere conveniente.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > Creo que es muy razonable.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > Por otro lado, cuando yo redacté ese texto, lo hice
            >      >      >          >      > habiendo tenido conversaciones con el staff al respecto.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > Por si acaso me fallaba la memoria, he confirmado con el
            >      >      >          >      > staff esta misma mañana que así es, que ello realizan verificaciones, de
            >      >      >          >      > forma manual, en diversas situaciones, por ejemplo, cuando se piden nuevos
            >      >      >          >      > recursos, o cuando hay sospechas de algun incumplimiento.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > La ventaja de esta propuesta es que se podría automatizar,
            >      >      >          >      > de la forma que LACNIC considere apropiado.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > Todos sabemos que automatizar algo tiene su coste inicial,
            >      >      >          >      > pero también es una inversión incluso a corto plazo, ya que evita mucho
            >      >      >          >      > trabajo manual de sucesivas verificaciones, y lo hace menos discriminatorio
            >      >      >          >      > (se verifica por igual a todos los miembros), y mas confiable.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > Por otro lado, una de las misiones de LACNIC es
            >      >      >          >      > precisamente la adecuada custodia de los recursos y asegurarse, dentro de
            >      >      >          >      > lo razonable, del cumplimento de las políticas. Por eso creo que mejorar el
            >      >      >          >      > texto actual no hace nada contrario al espíritu, sino todo lo contrario.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     comprendo,
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     pero pienso que no es necesario agregar eso en el texto. que
            >      >      >          >      > sea a
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     criterio del rir/nir hacer dicha verificación cuando
            >      >      >          >      > necesario.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     de la forma como propuesto se crea una expectativa de que el
            >      >      >          >      > rir/nir sea
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     una "policía" de anuncios de bloques asignados.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     y puede ser cobrada cuando una determinada expectativa no se
            >      >      >          >      > cumpla como
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     esperado por una parte involucrada.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     no veo perjuicio en mantener esa parte como está actualmente.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     saludos
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > Saludos,
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > Jordi
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > El 8/10/19 22:20, "Politicas en nombre de Ricardo Patara" <
            >      >      >          >      > politicas-bounces at lacnic.net en nombre de patara at registro.br> escribió:
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     Hola,
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     En el foro comenté que no tenia una posición formada
            >      >      >          >      > acerca de esa
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     propuesta pero al final dije que no estaba de acuerdo.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     Y sigo sin estar de acuerdo y quisiera registrar en la
            >      >      >          >      > lista.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     Con base en los comentarios me hechos en el foro me
            >      >      >          >      > preocupa un punto
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     que todavía no lo había considerado.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     En el texto propuesto se indica:
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     "Para la eficiente utilización de los recursos de la
            >      >      >          >      > región, LACNIC
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     verificará con las organizaciones que reciben recursos,
            >      >      >          >      > el correcto uso
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     de los mismos, de forma automatizada periódicamente
            >      >      >          >      > cuando sea posible y
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     más exhaustivamente siempre que se cuente con
            >      >      >          >      > evidencias que permitan
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     inferir que no están siendo correctamente utilizados."
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     específicamente se indica que lacnic "verificará de
            >      >      >          >      > forma automatizada
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     periódicamente"
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     eso no está en el proceso actual, así que es algo nuevo
            >      >      >          >      > y que seguro
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     implica en impacto operacional.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     para comparación, el texto vigente indica:
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     "LACNIC verificará con la organización que recibió la
            >      >      >          >      > asignación el
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     correcto uso del recurso cuando cuente con evidencia
            >      >      >          >      > que permita inferir
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     que posiblemente los recursos de la asignación no están
            >      >      >          >      > siendo
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     utilizados o están siendo utilizados incorrectamente."
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     no veo justificativa para el cambio propuesto en esa
            >      >      >          >      > parte y por eso
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     estoy contra la propuesta
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     Saludos
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     _______________________________________________
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     Politicas mailing list
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     Politicas at lacnic.net
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >     https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > **********************************************
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > IPv4 is over
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > http://www.theipv6company.com
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > The IPv6 Company
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > This electronic message contains information which may be
            >      >      >          >      > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the
            >      >      >          >      > exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
            >      >      >          >      > authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
            >      >      >          >      > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
            >      >      >          >      > prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
            >      >      >          >      > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
            >      >      >          >      > use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
            >      >      >          >      > attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
            >      >      >          >      > offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
            >      >      >          >      > communication and delete it.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > _______________________________________________
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > Politicas mailing list
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > Politicas at lacnic.net
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     --
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     Ricardo Patara
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     _______________________________________________
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     Politicas mailing list
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     Politicas at lacnic.net
            >      >      >          >      > >      >     https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      > **********************************************
            >      >      >          >      > >      > IPv4 is over
            >      >      >          >      > >      > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
            >      >      >          >      > >      > http://www.theipv6company.com
            >      >      >          >      > >      > The IPv6 Company
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      > This electronic message contains information which may be
            >      >      >          >      > privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the
            >      >      >          >      > exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
            >      >      >          >      > authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
            >      >      >          >      > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
            >      >      >          >      > prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
            >      >      >          >      > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
            >      >      >          >      > use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
            >      >      >          >      > attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
            >      >      >          >      > offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
            >      >      >          >      > communication and delete it.
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >      > _______________________________________________
            >      >      >          >      > >      > Politicas mailing list
            >      >      >          >      > >      > Politicas at lacnic.net
            >      >      >          >      > >      > https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
            >      >      >          >      > >      >
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >      --
            >      >      >          >      > >      Ricardo Patara
            >      >      >          >      > >      _______________________________________________
            >      >      >          >      > >      Politicas mailing list
            >      >      >          >      > >      Politicas at lacnic.net
            >      >      >          >      > >      https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > > **********************************************
            >      >      >          >      > > IPv4 is over
            >      >      >          >      > > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
            >      >      >          >      > > http://www.theipv6company.com
            >      >      >          >      > > The IPv6 Company
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
            >      >      >          >      > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of
            >      >      >          >      > the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
            >      >      >          >      > disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
            >      >      >          >      > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
            >      >      >          >      > prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
            >      >      >          >      > intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
            >      >      >          >      > use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
            >      >      >          >      > attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
            >      >      >          >      > offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
            >      >      >          >      > communication and delete it.
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > >
            >      >      >          >      > > _______________________________________________
            >      >      >          >      > > 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
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          > **********************************************
            >      >      >          > IPv4 is over
            >      >      >          > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
            >      >      >          > http://www.theipv6company.com
            >      >      >          > The IPv6 Company
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          >
            >      >      >          > _______________________________________________
            >      >      >          > 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
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      **********************************************
            >      >      >      IPv4 is over
            >      >      >      Are you ready for the new Internet ?
            >      >      >      http://www.theipv6company.com
            >      >      >      The IPv6 Company
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >      _______________________________________________
            >      >      >      Politicas mailing list
            >      >      >      Politicas at lacnic.net
            >      >      >      https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      > **********************************************
            >      >      > IPv4 is over
            >      >      > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
            >      >      > http://www.theipv6company.com
            >      >      > The IPv6 Company
            >      >      >
            >      >      > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      >
            >      >      > _______________________________________________
            >      >      > 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
            >      >
            >      >
            >      >
            >      >
            >      > **********************************************
            >      > IPv4 is over
            >      > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
            >      > http://www.theipv6company.com
            >      > The IPv6 Company
            >      >
            >      > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
            >      >
            >      >
            >      >
            >      >
            >      > _______________________________________________
            >      > 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
            >      
            >
            >
            >
            > **********************************************
            > IPv4 is over
            > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
            > http://www.theipv6company.com
            > The IPv6 Company
            >
            > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            _______________________________________________
            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
            
        
        
        
        **********************************************
        IPv4 is over
        Are you ready for the new Internet ?
        http://www.theipv6company.com
        The IPv6 Company
        
        This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
        
        
        
        _______________________________________________
        Politicas mailing list
        Politicas at lacnic.net
        https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
        
        
    
    
    
    **********************************************
    IPv4 is over
    Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    http://www.theipv6company.com
    The IPv6 Company
    
    This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    Politicas mailing list
    Politicas at lacnic.net
    https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/politicas
    
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.





More information about the Politicas mailing list