Person profile
PersonPublic policy participant
The available evidence covers Roles: Affiliation listed in the October 2007 ARIN Advisory Council election slate (Internap).
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.
