人物档案
人物公开资料将 Edward Lewis 记录为与互联网基础设施相关决策、诉讼、治理或运营事项中的人物；其当前职务和隶属关系仍需核实。
现有证据涵盖：角色: RFC 4592 editor, affiliated with NeuStar in the July 2006 RFC (NeuStar)。
“Edward Lewis”用于支持 Edward Lewis 的身份、角色或组织背景。
public people profile
最近更新: 2026-10-13
来源事实
观点一致性: 未明确表明立场
观点一致性: 未明确表明立场
观点一致性: 未明确表明立场
观点一致性: 证据不足，无法评估一致性
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
评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · 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.
条件: 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?
观点一致性: 未明确表明立场
观点一致性: 未明确表明立场
观点一致性: 证据不足，无法评估一致性
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
评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · 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.
条件: 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
评估: 证据不足，无法评估一致性 · 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.
条件: 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.
观点一致性: 未明确表明立场
Is the RSA the same for everyone?
