LACNIC 45 Policy Proposals — Summary

May 27, 2026

LACNIC 45 will bring the Latin America and Caribbean Internet community together for another important round of technical exchange, operational updates, and policy discussion. For those following Internet number resource policy, the main item to watch is LAC-2025-2: Definition of “Organization” – a proposal aimed at clarifying who is eligible to receive Internet numbering resources from LACNIC.

While LAC-2025-2 is the proposal formally up for discussion, several adjacent policy ideas may also surface during the broader conversation. These include proposals related to natural persons without economic activity, IPv6 deployment incentives, legacy resource management, and authorized third-party use of IPv4 resources. Together, they point to a larger theme: LACNIC’s community is continuing to refine how Internet number resources are accessed, maintained, and used across the region.

LAC-2025-2: Definition of “Organization”

Proposal LAC-2025-2 focuses on a deceptively simple question: what does LACNIC mean when it says resources may be distributed to “legally established organizations”? The current language has created room for different interpretations. In some jurisdictions, “legally established” could be read narrowly to mean incorporated legal entities only. In practice, however, LACNIC has also served self-employed individuals, sole traders, and similar natural persons engaged in lawful economic activity.

The proposal would make that interpretation explicit. Legal entities and natural persons engaged in economic activity would both be recognized as eligible recipients, provided they are legally established in LACNIC’s service region and the resources are primarily used for networks and services operating in that region.

This is not positioned as a major operational shift, but more of a cleanup: bringing the written policy manual into line with current practice and reducing the risk that applicants, staff, or future readers interpret the policy differently. That matters because ambiguity creates friction, and a sole proprietor, independent network operator, or small entrepreneur should not have to guess whether their legal form makes them eligible for resources.

Clearer eligibility language can reduce back-and-forth during requests, improve planning certainty, and make it easier for smaller or non-traditional operators to understand where they stand.

LAC-2025-1: Distribution of Resources to Natural Persons

A related proposal, LAC-2025-1, (should it come up for discussion) takes the eligibility discussion one step further. While LAC-2025-2 addresses natural persons with economic activity, LAC-2025-1 looks at natural persons without economic activity, such as researchers, households, or citizens who want independent Internet connectivity in a personal capacity.

The argument is rooted in the growth of IPv6 and the increasing importance of resilient connectivity. An individual may want to operate with their own IPv6 resources, use multihoming, or avoid relying entirely on provider-assigned addressing. Under the proposal, natural persons without economic activity could receive distributions or assignments if they are legal residents of the LACNIC service region and the resources are used mostly within the region.

This is broader and likely more philosophical than LAC-2025-2. It raises questions about whether Internet number resources should remain primarily institutional, or whether individuals should also have a direct path to resources in a world where independent connectivity is increasingly important.

The practical impact may be limited at first, but the policy signal would be meaningful: LACNIC would be recognizing that direct Internet participation is not only a business or institutional need.

LAC-2025-4: Priority on the IPv4 Waiting List for Those Who Have Already Deployed IPv6

Another potential policy to be raised is LAC-2025-4, which approaches IPv6 adoption from a different angle: Previous discussions have often treated IPv6 deployment as a requirement or condition for receiving some benefit, but this proposal flips that logic. Instead of using IPv6 as the stick, it uses IPv6 as the carrot.

The idea is straightforward: organizations already on the IPv4 Waiting List that can demonstrate effective IPv6 deployment would move ahead of those that have not deployed IPv6. LACNIC would determine how to verify deployment, and fraudulent or simulated IPv6 deployment would be treated as a policy violation.

The proposal is interesting because it acknowledges a real operational imbalance. Deploying IPv6 without having sufficient IPv4 resources is not easy. Some networks may need to rely on transferred IPv4 space, provider sub-assignments, or other workarounds

while still investing in IPv6. Giving those networks priority on the waiting list would be a way to recognize that effort.

For operators the takeaway is not that IPv4 scarcity goes away, but the proposal would change the incentives around the waiting list by rewarding networks that have already moved toward the long-term architecture of the Internet.

LAC-2023-4: Legacy Resources Management

LAC-2023-4, were it to be raised, addresses a different kind of stewardship issue: legacy resources. These are Internet number resources assigned before the modern Regional Internet Registry framework was in place. The proposal identifies resources assigned before 28 December 1997 as legacy resources and focuses on what happens when those resources are not being actively maintained, announced, or connected to reachable contacts.

The concern is partly fairness and partly operational hygiene. Some legacy holders may not have signed membership agreements or paid fees, yet still receive certain services. Others may have outdated WHOIS records, unreachable abuse contacts, unused address space, or resources being used without the original holder’s knowledge.

The proposal would create minimum expectations: legacy resources should be announced and utilized, reverse resolution records should be maintained, and allocation or assignment information should remain current in WHOIS, including abuse contact information. After a transition period, LACNIC’s Board could cease certain services or initiate recovery procedures if requirements are not met.

This is a compliance discussion, but also a data-quality and trust discussion. Accurate WHOIS, active contact points, and clear resource status all matter when operators need to resolve abuse, validate routing information, or understand who is responsible for a block.

LAC-2024-3: Use of Resources by Third Parties Authorized by Recipients

The final policy that could be raised at LACNIC is LAC-2024-3, which deals directly with the scarcity and operational flexibility of IPv4. Current policy language allows resources to be used by “third parties authorized by the recipient” where policy permits, but the proposal argues that the current text does not give enough detail about what that actually means in practice.

The proposed text would allow ISPs and end users to authorize third parties to use IPv4 addresses allocated or assigned by LACNIC or NIRs for use cases such as infrastructure support, joint projects, sub-delegation, and temporary utilization. Any /29 or larger block

used by an authorized third party would need to be registered in LACNIC’s WHOIS database within seven days, with updated organizational and contact information.

There are also guardrails: The proposal would not apply to IPv4 addresses assigned by ISPs to end users, nor to resources allocated or assigned for critical Internet infrastructure under the specified policy sections.

For clients, this proposal is important because it sits close to day-to-day IPv4 operations. Many organizations need flexible arrangements: infrastructure partners, temporary projects, downstream customers, shared deployments, or collaborative networks. Clearer rules could reduce uncertainty, while WHOIS registration requirements would preserve transparency.

What clients should really take away from LACNIC 45

For clients and network operators, the key takeaway from LACNIC 45 is that LAC-2025-2’s immediate impact may appear modest, but eligibility language matters. Clearer definitions can reduce uncertainty for applicants, improve consistency in resource requests, and help ensure that legitimate entrepreneurs, sole traders, and independent professionals are not excluded by ambiguous wording.

The other proposals in active discussion may not be formally debated in the same way, but they remain important context. If raised, they could broaden the conversation beyond the definition of “organization” and into larger questions about individual access to resources, incentives for IPv6 adoption, legacy resource accountability, and more flexible use of scarce IPv4 space.

With an aim toward precision, LACNIC 45 appears focused on making the rules clearer, fairer, and better aligned with operational reality.