Person profile
PersonPublic policy participant
The available evidence covers Roles: RFC 4592 editor, affiliated with NeuStar in the July 2006 RFC (NeuStar).
Source description Public policy participant
Editor's Address Edward Lewis NeuStar
public people profile
Last updated: 2026-10-13
Source facts
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Edward proposes withholding public name-server listings for disconnected networks to limit lame delegations, with listings permitted after connection. One amendment proposal does not establish stability over time or unqualified support for every part of 2004-3.
2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Edward proposes withholding public name-server listings for disconnected networks to limit lame delegations, with listings permitted after connection. One amendment proposal does not establish stability over time or unqualified support for every part of 2004-3.
Conditions: The proposed DNS restriction is not present in the retained final text and is not treated as an adopted requirement.
I would like to add that these registrations are barred from listing name servers.
If a disconnected network numbered under this policy is to be connected to the Internet, only then should name servers be permitted.
2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity · ARIN-prop-27: RSA Modification Procedure
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The DNS amendment addresses consequences for public delegations, while the RSA questions address who is affected by contract revisions and how a veto works. No mutually exclusive position is expressed, but the difference in subject and the absence of repeated positions prevent a stronger consistency judgement.
Conditions: The absence of a visible contradiction is not proof of an enduring general position.
the point is to limit the spread of lame DNS delegations.
Is the RSA the same for everyone?
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
He welcomes the effort on RSA modification procedure while asking whether revisions are global or registrant-specific and what the Board veto clause means. These questions qualify the interest expressed; one contribution cannot establish his later settled view.
ARIN-prop-27: RSA Modification Procedure
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · He welcomes the effort on RSA modification procedure while asking whether revisions are global or registrant-specific and what the Board veto clause means. These questions qualify the interest expressed; one contribution cannot establish his later settled view.
Conditions: Interest in the initiative is not unqualified endorsement of all proposed wording. · A request to explain the veto must not be classified as opposition to having any veto.
Thanks, Owen, I like the effort.
Is the RSA the same for everyone?
Do you mean that BoT, under advice of council, has authority to veto?
2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity · ARIN-prop-27: RSA Modification Procedure
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · The DNS amendment addresses consequences for public delegations, while the RSA questions address who is affected by contract revisions and how a veto works. No mutually exclusive position is expressed, but the difference in subject and the absence of repeated positions prevent a stronger consistency judgement.
Conditions: The absence of a visible contradiction is not proof of an enduring general position.
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
the point is to limit the spread of lame DNS delegations.
Is the RSA the same for everyone?
