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

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Thu Jun 4 19:56:34 EDT 2015


> On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:25 PM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
> 
> John,
> 
> On Jun 4, 2015, at 4:22 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net <mailto:jcurran at arin.net>> wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Yes, but I'd mark such records in the registration database as 'tentative' (or some such).

Interesting - 1) After what period of time of missing the original holder?
                    2) Considering that this action would replace existing information, would it
                        be perhaps better to add additional fields for it?
                    3) We would need to be extremely certain about how we go about “releasing”
                         these rights based on registry policy (as there’s unlikely to be directly
                         applicable adverse possession precedent); this effectively would rationalize
                         hijacking against ‘defunct' organizations (might not be a bad thing, but
                         wanted to be very clear on this aspect)

>> 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?
> 
> The approach Postel chose in such cases was to leave things as they were until there was consensus among the contesting parties.  It has worked (more or less) in the TLD space at IANA, I think it is a reasonable course of action.

Our practices presently mirror this approach - we preserve the status quo and presume that
the parties will reach consensus amongst themselves (or seek redress via the legal system)

>> 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?
> 
> I'd probably use the 'tentative' (or some such) status in these case, but I suspect it's context sensitive.
> 
> The overarching point is that augmenting the database to provide additional information related to policy conformance can be beneficial for the consumers of the database.  Not updating records is the opposite.

Very interesting concepts.  There is a question of whether doing this is a worthwhile
investment - i.e. it’s unclear if such fields would ever be used w.r.t IPv6, and there may
be more efficient ways of resolving the current situation (although it hasn’t happened
over the last decade…)

If there’s a number of folks who have interest in this approach, it could be worth considering
policy in this area.   I’ll eave it to you and the rest of the community on ppml to explore the
options.

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150604/9500a119/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/20150604/9500a119/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list