Improving LACNIC Policies

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

  • If you decide to write up a policy proposal addressing one or more of these potential improvements, you can submit it via

  • If you wish to be put in touch with a Policy Shepherd* to guide you through the process of submitting your proposal, please contact

    *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.

1. Define the percentage of resources used outside the LACNIC region

Section 1.11 of the Policy Manual mentions that an organization requesting resources must be legally incorporated within the LACNIC service region and use the resources mainly to serve networks and services operating in the region. The term “mainly” creates confusion when analyzing the case of resources outside the region. Therefore, it is recommended that the community propose a modification to this section to define the percentage of resources used outside the region.

2. Policy to define access to RDAP data

The LACNIC policy currently in force only addresses how Bulk Whois data is to be used and how to request this data. Given the development and advances of RDAP in the LACNIC region, it would be good to have a policy that defines how to request access to RDAP data.

3. Editorial review of the LACNIC Policy Manual

The current text has undergone dozens of modifications due to the new proposals that have been approved and added. Unfortunately, these changes have resulted in a very long text with various inconsistencies and repetitions (some items are repeated in the IPv4 and IPv6 sections). Likewise, parts of the IPv4 policy no longer apply now that the final phases of IPv4 exhaustion have been reached.

4. Clarify the term cession in the Spanish original

Section Requirements for a /24 to /22 prefix
“(…) Si se ha justificado espacio adicional y es posible su distribución, el receptor podrá decidir si la cesión* (…)

*By way of clarification, for the purpose of LACNIC’s operations, to “hand over” (ceder in the Spanish original) is equivalent to a simplification of the transfer process, under which section does not apply. In any case, it would not be possible to apply this section as LACNIC has no resources available for organizations other than new entrants.

Change the term “hand-over” and include the text specified after the asterisk (*) above so that it will be part of the manual.

5.  Extend the time needed to present a proposal at the FPP.

Currently one week, this might not be enough to discuss the proposals on the agenda if several proposals are presented at the last minute.

6. Clarify the wording used regarding the terms “ISP” and “end user”

The terms ISP and end user are used in the policy manual. But what is the current definition of an ISP? Are there any cases where end users make sub-assignments?
It would be convenient to review whether the use of these terms in the manual still applies.
Reference: RIPE uses the concept of “LIR”  (an organization that receives addresses from a RIR and distributes them)

7. Extending the period of utilization for an IPv4 block after its assignment by LACNIC

The policy currently in force establishes that an organization receiving IPv4 space must utilize this resource within a period no longer than 30 days. On occasion, applicants inform LACNIC that their upstream provider has been unable to accept their announcement, even after this 30-day period. For this reason, we recommend extending this period to make it more convenient for the community. Reference: Item of the Policy Manual, available at