<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">John,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">On Jun 4, 2015, at 4:22 AM, John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" class="">jcurran@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">1) Should we update the entry for those cases where there is a party with effective </div><div class=""> ‘possession’ (i.e. use) of an address block but the original address holder cannot</div><div class=""> be contacted or found? </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Yes, but I'd mark such records in the registration database as 'tentative' (or some such). </div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">2) Similarly, should we update the entry when a party has been using an address block</div><div class=""> for some time, and is still actively using it, but there is a dispute about the meaning</div><div class=""> of paperwork between the party and present address holder in the registry? </div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>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.</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">3) We presently have some practices regarding what documentation we require when</div><div class=""> a party asserts to now have the rights to IP address block via merger/acquisition </div><div class=""> You can see specifics here -<<a href="https://www.arin.net/resources/transfers/index.html" class="">https://www.arin.net/resources/transfers/index.html</a>></div><div class=""> May we waive the documentation requirements if the party who asserts such can</div><div class=""> demonstrate that they have operational control of the IP address block?</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>I'd probably use the 'tentative' (or some such) status in these case, but I suspect it's context sensitive.</div><br class=""></div><div>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.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Regards,</div><div>-drc</div><div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>