Michael Dillon

Das BTW-Verzeichnis bündelt öffentliche Datensätze zu Michael Dillon.

Die verfügbaren Daten umfassen Rollen: author (Radianz, Inc.).

Zuletzt beobachtet 2026-10-11

Rollen: author (Radianz, Inc.)

Konfidenz

Öffentliche Rolle: Die zitierten öffentlichen Quellen nennen Michael Dillon als Person im Zusammenhang mit Entscheidungen, Verfahren, Governance oder Betrieb der Internet-Infrastruktur; aktuelle Funktion und Zugehörigkeit müssen weiterhin geprüft werden.
Informationstyp: Die dokumentierte öffentliche Rolle, Entscheidungen oder rechtliche Beteiligung von Michael Dillon können Netzinvestitionen, Marktzugang, Infrastrukturpolitik oder Verantwortungsgrenzen beeinflussen; dieses Dossier trennt zitierte Nachweise von der Prüfung der aktuellen Funktion.

Zugehörige Details

Michael Dillon
Internet: michael.dillon at btradianz.com
public people profile
Michael Dillon
Author: Michael Dillon Author’s Organization: Radianz, Inc.
public people profile

Zuletzt aktualisiert: 2026-10-11

Rollen

Role:author (Radianz, Inc.)Noch nicht bewertetHistorisch

Role:Capacity Management (RadianzNet)Noch nicht bewertetHistorisch

Quellenbelegte Fakten

Beteiligung an RIR-Richtlinien

1Beteiligte RIRs

5Beteiligte Richtlinien

12Richtliniennachrichten insgesamt

10.11.2005Erste Beteiligung

28.04.2006Letzte Beteiligung

ARIN-2005-12005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sitesUnterstützung · 7 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Konsistent
The February request for measurable assignment criteria and the April sizing suggestion are compatible with his later support for a reasonable IPv6 PI policy that can be monitored and revised. His objections to fixed worst-case forecasts likewise rely on the possibility of adaptation. The retained arguments do not show a reversal from opposition to support.
2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Bewertung: Konsistent · The February request for measurable assignment criteria and the April sizing suggestion are compatible with his later support for a reasonable IPv6 PI policy that can be monitored and revised. His objections to fixed worst-case forecasts likewise rely on the possibility of adaptation. The retained arguments do not show a reversal from opposition to support.
Bedingungen: Asking how to measure eligibility is not an explicit vote against the proposal. · Support remains qualified by reasonable sizing, monitoring and the ability to respond to evidence. · This compares the retained February-April arguments and does not establish later conduct or outcomes.
09.02.2006
So the question is, what do we measure? And what is the threshold at which an end user orgnization qualifies?
07.04.2006
/31 After that LIR sizing rules should apply.
27.04.2006
ARIN could easily manage revision of the IPv6 PI policy 3 times, if that is needed in order to respond to new developments.
28.04.2006
We have no choice but to put in place a reasonable PI policy for IPv6, monitor its effects, and adjust it if and when necessary.
28.04.2006
I would love to see some real numbers where there is an attempt to look at best case, worst case and most likely case
2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · A /31 sizing suggestion appears under both direct-assignment discussions, and his separate request for measurable criteria is compatible with considering a sizing rule. The shared message provides only one statement, so the two links do not independently demonstrate consistency between the proposals.
Bedingungen: The same source message must be counted once when weighing independent evidence. · The short suggestion leaves the scope of agreement with each proposal uncertain.
07.04.2006
/31 After that LIR sizing rules should apply.
09.02.2006
So the question is, what do we measure? And what is the threshold at which an end user orgnization qualifies?
2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Bewertung: Konsistent · The privacy comment separates public Whois disclosure from records available to staff, while the assignment discussion allows analysts to request information to justify an address block. These specific arguments are compatible: limiting public disclosure need not prevent staff verification.
Bedingungen: This finding concerns his distinction between public information and application evidence. · It does not prove that the policies as ultimately implemented satisfy both aims.
25.04.2006
Again, ARIN staff can already get more complete information than WHOIS publishing policy specifies.
09.02.2006
the ARIN analysts could request backup information to confirm these numbers.
ARIN-2005-92005-9: 4-Byte AS NumberUnbekannt · 2 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Keine ausdrückliche Position angegeben
ARIN-2006-12006-1: Residential Customer PrivacyUnbekannt · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
He distinguishes information collected for address applications from information published in Whois, arguing that staff can obtain fuller records separately. This is a substantive scope argument, but one message cannot show whether his privacy position remained consistent over time.
2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · He distinguishes information collected for address applications from information published in Whois, arguing that staff can obtain fuller records separately. This is a substantive scope argument, but one message cannot show whether his privacy position remained consistent over time.
Bedingungen: His statements about staff access are his argument, not independently verified operating policy. · The comment is not a blanket endorsement of every privacy provision.
25.04.2006
Again, ARIN staff can already get more complete information than WHOIS publishing policy specifies.
25.04.2006
The Residential Privacy policy refers only to the information published in the whois directory and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ADDRESS APPLICATIONS.
2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Bewertung: Konsistent · The privacy comment separates public Whois disclosure from records available to staff, while the assignment discussion allows analysts to request information to justify an address block. These specific arguments are compatible: limiting public disclosure need not prevent staff verification.
Bedingungen: This finding concerns his distinction between public information and application evidence. · It does not prove that the policies as ultimately implemented satisfy both aims.
ARIN-2006-42006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End SitesAlternativvorschlag · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
The retained message proposes /31 followed by LIR sizing rules, but supplies very little context and no second position to compare. It supports a specific sizing suggestion, not a finding about stable support for every part of the direct-assignment proposal.
2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The retained message proposes /31 followed by LIR sizing rules, but supplies very little context and no second position to compare. It supports a specific sizing suggestion, not a finding about stable support for every part of the direct-assignment proposal.
Bedingungen: Only one brief observation is available. · The same message is also linked to 2005-1 and must not be counted as independent corroboration.
07.04.2006
/31 After that LIR sizing rules should apply.
2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites · 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · A /31 sizing suggestion appears under both direct-assignment discussions, and his separate request for measurable criteria is compatible with considering a sizing rule. The shared message provides only one statement, so the two links do not independently demonstrate consistency between the proposals.
Bedingungen: The same source message must be counted once when weighing independent evidence. · The short suggestion leaves the scope of agreement with each proposal uncertain.
07.04.2006
/31 After that LIR sizing rules should apply.
09.02.2006
ARIN-prop-27ARIN-prop-27: RSA Modification ProcedureAlternativvorschlag · 1 Diskussionsbeiträge
Konsistenz der Position: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen.
The one retained reply asks for RS Agreement instead of RSA to avoid confusion with cryptographic terminology. It does not establish his view of public notice, community review or the Board's legal-advice exception, and there is no second position to compare.
ARIN-prop-27: RSA Modification Procedure
Bewertung: Die Datenlage reicht nicht aus, um die Konsistenz zu beurteilen. · The one retained reply asks for RS Agreement instead of RSA to avoid confusion with cryptographic terminology. It does not establish his view of public notice, community review or the Board's legal-advice exception, and there is no second position to compare.
Bedingungen: A terminology amendment must not be treated as substantive support or opposition to all proposed clauses. · No claim is made about his wider views on contract governance.
21.04.2006
now that the terminology is to be enshrined in policy, I would like to ask the author to change it to RS Agreement.