Person profile
PersonPublic policy participant
Source description Public policy participant
Scott Leibrand, Internap
public people profile
Scott Leibrand
public people profile
Scott Leibrand January 2008 - December 2016
public people profile
Last updated: 2026-10-13
Source facts
Viewpoint consistency: No explicit position stated
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
His support for an open PDP is consistent with later requests to publish drafts on the mailing list and include pre-meeting comments in consensus assessment.
Policy Development Process in the AFRINIC service region | AFPUB-2010-GEN-005
Assessment: Consistent · His support for an open PDP is consistent with later requests to publish drafts on the mailing list and include pre-meeting comments in consensus assessment.
I think this is a good process (and a good summary).
it's important to also consider mailing list comments in determining whether to send a proposal to last call.
Perhaps SM could capture that in the PDP document?
Policy Development Process in the AFRINIC service region | AFPUB-2010-GEN-005 · IPv4 Soft Landing Policy | AFPUB-2010-v4-005
Assessment: Consistent · Supporting the PDP’s participation rules while reserving judgement on Soft Landing is compatible: one concerns how decisions are made, the other concerns the merits of IPv4 rationing.
I think this is a good process (and a good summary).
I'll hold off for now on expressing a position on the overall issue
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
Across 2009 and 2010 he offers drafting and allocation advice while expressly withholding an overall verdict on IPv4 rationing. Describing reduced aggregation is an impact assessment, not a reversal from support to opposition.
IPv4 Soft Landing Policy | AFPUB-2010-v4-005
Assessment: Consistent · Across 2009 and 2010 he offers drafting and allocation advice while expressly withholding an overall verdict on IPv4 rationing. Describing reduced aggregation is an impact assessment, not a reversal from support to opposition.
I have no definitive opinions either way
I'll hold off for now on expressing a position on the overall issue
I have no comment at this point as to whether that is a better or worse overall outcome
Policy Development Process in the AFRINIC service region | AFPUB-2010-GEN-005 · IPv4 Soft Landing Policy | AFPUB-2010-v4-005
Assessment: Consistent · Supporting the PDP’s participation rules while reserving judgement on Soft Landing is compatible: one concerns how decisions are made, the other concerns the merits of IPv4 rationing.
I think this is a good process (and a good summary).
I'll hold off for now on expressing a position on the overall issue
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
His reverse-DNS contribution asks whether direct end-user assignments are covered. It does not establish support, opposition or a change of position.
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · His reverse-DNS contribution asks whether direct end-user assignments are covered. It does not establish support, opposition or a change of position.
This applies to AfriNIC -> end user assignments as well?
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
Asking which IPv6 PI criteria could win consensus and acknowledging a shim6 technical explanation do not establish opposing positions on the allocation policy.
2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · Asking which IPv6 PI criteria could win consensus and acknowledging a shim6 technical explanation do not establish opposing positions on the allocation policy.
Conditions: The two statements address different questions; neither provides a final eligibility rule or a clear vote on the proposal.
I would love to hear what exactly everyone thinks is an appropriate standard for allocating IPv6 PI space so we can better gauge what would be a consensus position.
From the discussion I've seen of middle-boxes on the shim6 list, that seems to be the idea.
2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites · ARIN-prop-27: RSA Modification Procedure
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · A question about IPv6 PI eligibility and an editorial terminology change in the RSA proposal are not comparable policy commitments.
Conditions: Different subject matter and limited statements prevent a conclusion about consistency across these policies.
hear what exactly everyone thinks is an appropriate standard for allocating IPv6 PI space
We have enough acronym confusion already.
Viewpoint consistency: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency
His agreement supports clearer terminology in the RSA discussion. It is not an endorsement of all proposed contractual changes.
ARIN-prop-27: RSA Modification Procedure
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · His agreement supports clearer terminology in the RSA discussion. It is not an endorsement of all proposed contractual changes.
Conditions: Only one statement is available for this policy; its reply context limits the agreement to the terminology change.
I'll second that. We have enough acronym confusion already. :)
2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites · ARIN-prop-27: RSA Modification Procedure
Assessment: Insufficient evidence to assess consistency · A question about IPv6 PI eligibility and an editorial terminology change in the RSA proposal are not comparable policy commitments.
Conditions: Different subject matter and limited statements prevent a conclusion about consistency across these policies.
hear what exactly everyone thinks is an appropriate standard for allocating IPv6 PI space
We have enough acronym confusion already.
Viewpoint consistency: Consistent
The July post accepts the need for inter-RIR transfers while questioning dual-registry justification and enforcement after a transfer. The August post explicitly supports the revised proposal and its safeguards. The stated change is therefore compatible with the earlier reservations.
Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers
Assessment: Consistent · The July post accepts the need for inter-RIR transfers while questioning dual-registry justification and enforcement after a transfer. The August post explicitly supports the revised proposal and its safeguards. The stated change is therefore compatible with the earlier reservations.
Conditions: Only the two supplied posts are compared; this does not verify which textual changes resolved each concern or establish final policy adoption.
I think it's an important issue that needs to be discussed, and I agree that some sort of Inter-RIR transfer policy is necessary.
As such, I support this proposal.
