[arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Thu Jun 4 07:22:27 EDT 2015


On Jun 3, 2015, at 11:29 PM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Is it correct to say that you simply feel registry should always be updated if address
>> holder wishes (and even if they disregard policy, fail to enter an agreement pay the
>> transfer fee, etc?)
>> 
>> Or are you saying that we should deny such transfers, but if somehow effectively
>> ‘possession’ of the address block moves to another party despite lack of transfer,
>> that the registry has to eventually reflect reality?
> 
> I'm not sure I see the the distinction you're making between the two. My opinion on whether ARIN should deny (presumably out of policy) transfers is not particularly relevant. Ignoring that, my answer to both would be 'yes’.


Understood.   Given you have proposed that the registry “accuracy” be measured via
fidelity to operational control of an address block, and that furthermore ARIN has a
responsibility to this definition of accuracy, I need to ask some further questions to
better understand this measure and its implications to the registry -

1) Should we update the entry for those cases where there is a party with effective
    ‘possession’ (i.e. use) of an address block but the original address holder cannot
    be contacted or  found?   This is not uncommon for address blocks where the
    original address holder is long gone and there’s a party with operational control/use
    of the address block who is asserting to be the rightful address holder.

2) Similarly, should we update the entry when a party has been using an address block
     for some time, and is still actively using it, but there is a dispute about the meaning
     of paperwork between the party and present address holder in the registry?  This
     also quite common, particularly with bill of sale documents that are ambiguous and
     being presented to the registry in documenting an asserted ‘sale’ of rights.

3) We presently have some practices regarding what documentation we require when
     a party asserts to now have the rights to IP address block via merger/acquisition
     You can see specifics here -<https://www.arin.net/resources/transfers/index.html <https://www.arin.net/resources/transfers/index.html>>
     May we waive the documentation requirements if the party who asserts such can
     demonstrate that they have operational control of the IP address block?

Once I have solid understanding of your accuracy model, it will be possible to understand
what changes in mission/agreements/etc would be necessary if the community wished
to move in that direction.  It appears to represent a significant shift from tracking the legal
rights to address blocks in the registry that we presently perform.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150604/ee6e59fb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150604/ee6e59fb/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list