Three Policy Proposals to Be Debated in Costa Rica
22/09/2016
Three proposals for modifying the policies for managing Internet resources in Latin America and the Caribbean will be discussed on September 27 during the LACNIC Public Policy Forum to be held in Costa Rica.
The three proposals were submitted by members of the community and have already been thoroughly discussed, both at the event held in Cuba as well as on LACNIC’s Policy mailing list.
If these proposals achieve consensus in Costa Rica, they will continue the process towards their final implementation.
The first of the proposals to be debated will be presented by Edmundo Cazarez-Lopez of NIC Mexico and suggests reserving IPv4 addresses for deploying infrastructure regarded as critical or essential for the operation of the Internet in the region. The initiative seeks to create an IPv4 address reserve equivalent to a /15 that will survive independently of IPv4 address exhaustion. These addresses would be used to cover requests for deploying infrastructure regarded as critical or essential for Internet operation in the region.
The second proposal that will be seeking consensus in Costa Rica was authored by Julião Braga and suggests that the LACNIC community should eliminate any reference to a requesting organization’s “multihomed or non-multihomed” status. Eliminating references to an organization’s “multihomed or non-multihomed” status would also mean removing the requirement that states “at least 25% of the requested address space” and standardizing the text as “25% of the requested space.”
In Costa Rica the community will also discuss the policy proposal promoted by Jordi Palet of Consulintel regarding the modification of the initial size of IPv6 allocations. According to Palet, when the current policy was designed, the case of organizations that are not necessarily ISPs in the traditional sense but rather governments, academic networks or other similar scenarios were not taken into account. Due to their size, number of users, infrastructure, hierarchic or geographic structure and other reasons, these organizations might not sufficiently justify a need greater than a /32 under the current text of the policy.