Person profile
PersonPublic policy participant
The available evidence covers Roles: author (Radianz, Inc.).
Source description Public policy participant
Internet: michael.dillon at btradianz.com
public people profile
Author: Michael Dillon Author’s Organization: Radianz, Inc.
public people profile
Last updated: 2026-10-11
Source facts
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
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
Assessment: Consistent · 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.
Conditions: 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.
So the question is, what do we measure? And what is the threshold at which an end user orgnization qualifies?
/31 After that LIR sizing rules should apply.
ARIN could easily manage revision of the IPv6 PI policy 3 times, if that is needed in order to respond to new developments.
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.
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
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · 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.
Conditions: The same source message must be counted once when weighing independent evidence. · The short suggestion leaves the scope of agreement with each proposal uncertain.
/31 After that LIR sizing rules should apply.
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
Assessment: Consistent · 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.
Conditions: This finding concerns his distinction between public information and application evidence. · It does not prove that the policies as ultimately implemented satisfy both aims.
Again, ARIN staff can already get more complete information than WHOIS publishing policy specifies.
the ARIN analysts could request backup information to confirm these numbers.
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
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
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · 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.
Conditions: His statements about staff access are his argument, not independently verified operating policy. · The comment is not a blanket endorsement of every privacy provision.
Again, ARIN staff can already get more complete information than WHOIS publishing policy specifies.
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
Assessment: Consistent · 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.
Conditions: This finding concerns his distinction between public information and application evidence. · It does not prove that the policies as ultimately implemented satisfy both aims.
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
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
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · 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.
Conditions: Only one brief observation is available. · The same message is also linked to 2005-1 and must not be counted as independent corroboration.
/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
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · 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.
Conditions: The same source message must be counted once when weighing independent evidence. · The short suggestion leaves the scope of agreement with each proposal uncertain.
/31 After that LIR sizing rules should apply.
So the question is, what do we measure? And what is the threshold at which an end user orgnization qualifies?
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
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
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · 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.
Conditions: 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.
now that the terminology is to be enshrined in policy, I would like to ask the author to change it to RS Agreement.
Again, ARIN staff can already get more complete information than WHOIS publishing policy specifies.
the ARIN analysts could request backup information to confirm these numbers.
