<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=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:25 PM, David Conrad <<a href="mailto:drc@virtualized.org" class="">drc@virtualized.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252" class=""><div 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 class=""><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 class=""><br class=""></div>Yes, but I'd mark such records in the registration database as 'tentative' (or some such). </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Interesting - 1) After what period of time of missing the original holder?</div><div> 2) Considering that this action would replace existing information, would it </div><div> be perhaps better to add additional fields for it?</div><div> 3) We would need to be extremely certain about how we go about “releasing”</div><div> these rights based on registry policy (as there’s unlikely to be directly </div><div> applicable adverse possession precedent); this effectively would rationalize</div><div> hijacking against ‘defunct' organizations (might not be a bad thing, but </div><div> wanted to be very clear on this aspect)</div><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></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=""><div 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 class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Our practices presently mirror this approach - we preserve the status quo and presume that </div><div>the parties will reach consensus amongst themselves (or seek redress via the legal system)</div><div><div class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></div></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=""><div 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 class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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 class="">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></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Very interesting concepts. There is a question of whether doing this is a worthwhile</div><div>investment - i.e. it’s unclear if such fields would ever be used w.r.t IPv6, and there may</div><div>be more efficient ways of resolving the current situation (although it hasn’t happened </div><div>over the last decade…)</div><div><br class=""></div><div>If there’s a number of folks who have interest in this approach, it could be worth considering</div><div>policy in this area. I’ll eave it to you and the rest of the community on ppml to explore the </div><div>options.</div><br class=""><div class="">/John</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">John Curran</div><div class="">President and CEO</div><div class="">ARIN</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>