Seeking to inspire our community to develop new policy proposals, we are publishing the List of Improvements included below.
Please note that each ‘improvement' is not a policy proposal, so a formal writeup is not necessary.
The purpose of this list is to help gauge community interest in certain areas. Our goal is to create synergy among the community for the creation of new policy proposals, in the hope that, together, those listing possible improvements and those reading them will find possible solutions which can be submitted in the form of a policy proposal.
EVERYONE can contribute to the list below, adding any additional improvements they'd like to see in regards to the policies.
If you'd like to suggest another improvement, please send it to email@example.com
If you decide to write up a policy proposal addressing one or more of these potential improvements, you can submit it via politicas.lacnic.net
If you wish to be put in touch with a Policy Shepherd* to guide you through the process of submitting your proposal, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
*Policy Shepherds are members of the community with experience working with the PDP (Policy Development Process) who volunteer their time to help others submit their proposals.
Due to IPv4 address exhaustion, major access providers no longer offer the possibility of assigning /24 prefixes to their customers (small ISPs). In turn, these smaller ISPs do not qualify for a minimum assignment from LACNIC (/22) and therefore their operations are affected. This proposal seeks to allow smaller ISPs to request IPv4 addresses between a /24 and a /22.
Currently, when a policy proposal reaches consensus it is published for comments on the Public Policy List for a period of 45 days. This period is too long for a person to express their disagreement with a decision taken at the Public Policy Forum. This 45-day "idle time" delays the process, therefor it would be convenient to shorten the last call for comments.
Currently, LACNIC policies consider only how Bulk Whois information is managed and how it can be queried. Considering the development of RDAP and its progress in the LACNIC region, it would be good to have a policy defining how to request access to RDAP information.
Policy 188.8.131.52- Assignments to End Users
The text currently available has undergone dozens of modifications due to the multiple proposals that have been approved and incorporated over time. Unfortunately, these changes mean that the text is now excessively long and includes certain inconsistencies and repetitions (e.g., repetitions in the IPv4 and IPv6 sections). In addition, parts of the IPv4 policy no longer apply now that we are in the final phases of IPv4 exhaustion.
The definition in Section 1.9 Assign specifies that an assignment is not to be sub-assigned other parties, but it does not clarify whether this refers to permanent or temporary use (and, in this case, for how long), whether it allows offering services to third parties or only to those directly involved with the organization, whether it refers to a single address or to address blocks, whether it includes the transfer of responsibility, and many other questions that may arise in this regard. Likewise, it specifies that “Assignments must only be made for specific purposes documented by specific organizations,” which seems to imply that an organization which receives certain resources for use in its infrastructure but then offers addresses to external users would not qualify according to the documented rationale. The first paragraph of Section 184.108.40.206 Assignments to End Users creates similar doubts, as its specifies “for internal use, for the operation of their networks, but not for sub-delegation outside their organization.” However, no similar text has been included in the IPv6 policy.