Scott Leibrand

Scott Leibrand은(는) 인용된 공개 기록에서 인터넷 인프라와 관련된 의사결정, 소송, 거버넌스 또는 운영에 관여한 인물로 확인되며, 현재 직책과 소속은 검증 대상입니다.

확인 가능한 근거는 역할: Affiliation listed in the October 2007 ARIN Advisory Council election slate (Internap)를 다룹니다.

최신 January 20

역할: Affiliation listed in the October 2007 ARIN Advisory Council election slate (Internap)

신뢰도

정보 유형: Scott Leibrand의 문서로 확인된 공적 역할, 결정 또는 법적 연루는 네트워크 투자, 시장 접근, 인프라 정책, 책임 경계에 영향을 미칠 수 있습니다. 이 자료집은 인용된 기록과 현직 역할 검증을 구분해 담습니다.

역할

Role:Affiliation listed in the October 2007 ARIN Advisory Council election slate (Internap)아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

Role:Advisory Council member (ARIN)· January 2008 – December 2016아직 평가되지 않음과거 기록

출처 정보

RIR 정책 참여

3참여한 RIR

7참여한 정책

16총 정책 메시지 수

2006. 1. 24.최초 참여

2012. 12. 17.마지막 참여

AFPUB-2008-GEN-001Policy Development Process in the AfriNIC service region - AFPUB-2008-GEN-001알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 명시적인 입장은 밝히지 않음
AFPUB-2010-GEN-005Policy Development Process in the AFRINIC service region | AFPUB-2010-GEN-005수정을 조건으로 지지 · 3 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
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
평가: 일관성 · 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.
2010. 4. 9.
I think this is a good process (and a good summary).
2010. 5. 14.
it's important to also consider mailing list comments in determining whether to send a proposal to last call.
2010. 5. 17.
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
평가: 일관성 · 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.
2010. 4. 9.
I think this is a good process (and a good summary).
2010. 5. 14.
I'll hold off for now on expressing a position on the overall issue
AFPUB-2010-V4-005IPv4 Soft Landing Policy | AFPUB-2010-v4-005대안 제안 · 4 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
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
평가: 일관성 · 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.
2009. 9. 21.
I have no definitive opinions either way
2010. 5. 14.
I'll hold off for now on expressing a position on the overall issue
2010. 6. 25.
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
평가: 일관성 · 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.
2010. 4. 9.
I think this is a good process (and a good summary).
2010. 5. 14.
I'll hold off for now on expressing a position on the overall issue
AFPUB-2012-DNS-001No Reverse Unless Assigned알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
His reverse-DNS contribution asks whether direct end-user assignments are covered. It does not establish support, opposition or a change of position.
No Reverse Unless Assigned
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · His reverse-DNS contribution asks whether direct end-user assignments are covered. It does not establish support, opposition or a change of position.
2012. 12. 17.
This applies to AfriNIC -> end user assignments as well?
ARIN-2005-12005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites알 수 없음 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
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
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · Asking which IPv6 PI criteria could win consensus and acknowledging a shim6 technical explanation do not establish opposing positions on the allocation policy.
조건: The two statements address different questions; neither provides a final eligibility rule or a clear vote on the proposal.
2006. 1. 24.
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.
2006. 4. 18.
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
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · A question about IPv6 PI eligibility and an editorial terminology change in the RSA proposal are not comparable policy commitments.
조건: Different subject matter and limited statements prevent a conclusion about consistency across these policies.
2006. 1. 24.
hear what exactly everyone thinks is an appropriate standard for allocating IPv6 PI space
2006. 4. 21.
We have enough acronym confusion already.
ARIN-prop-27ARIN-prop-27: RSA Modification Procedure대안 제안 · 1 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다
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
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · His agreement supports clearer terminology in the RSA discussion. It is not an endorsement of all proposed contractual changes.
조건: Only one statement is available for this policy; its reply context limits the agreement to the terminology change.
2006. 4. 21.
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
평가: 일관성 판단에 필요한 근거가 부족합니다 · A question about IPv6 PI eligibility and an editorial terminology change in the RSA proposal are not comparable policy commitments.
조건: Different subject matter and limited statements prevent a conclusion about consistency across these policies.
2006. 1. 24.
hear what exactly everyone thinks is an appropriate standard for allocating IPv6 PI space
2006. 4. 21.
We have enough acronym confusion already.
LAC-2012-8Inter-RIR IPv4 Address Transfers지지 · 2 토론 메시지
관점 일관성: 일관성
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
평가: 일관성 · 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.
조건: Only the two supplied posts are compared; this does not verify which textual changes resolved each concern or establish final policy adoption.
2012. 7. 24.
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.
2012. 8. 22.
As such, I support this proposal.

Scott Leibrand

신뢰도

관련 정보

역할

RIR 정책 참여

RIR 정책 참여