<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="">David - <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> Apologies - it was pointed out to me that you might be speaking of how transfers should</div><div class=""> happen specifically for legacy IP address blocks (i.e. those held by parties due to their </div><div class=""> issuance prior to ARIN’s formation)… if that’s the case, please recast the questions as</div><div class=""> appropriate.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks!</div><div class="">/John</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jun 4, 2015, at 7:22 AM, John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net" class="">jcurran@arin.net</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="">On Jun 3, 2015, at 11:29 PM, David Conrad <<a href="mailto:drc@virtualized.org" class="">drc@virtualized.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class=""></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Is it correct to say that you simply feel registry should always be updated if address<br class="">holder wishes (and even if they disregard policy, fail to enter an agreement pay the<br class=""></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class="">transfer fee, etc?)<br class=""></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class=""></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Or are you saying that we should deny such transfers, but if somehow effectively<br class="">‘possession’ of the address block moves to another party despite lack of transfer,<br class="">that the registry has to eventually reflect reality?<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">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’.</div></blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Understood. Given you have proposed that the registry “accuracy” be measured via </div><div class="">fidelity to operational control of an address block, and that furthermore ARIN has a </div><div class="">responsibility to this definition of accuracy, I need to ask some further questions to </div><div class="">better understand this measure and its implications to the registry - </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><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? This is not uncommon for address blocks where the </div><div class=""> original address holder is long gone and there’s a party with operational control/use </div><div class=""> of the address block who is asserting to be the rightful address holder. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><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? This </div><div class=""> also quite common, particularly with bill of sale documents that are ambiguous and</div><div class=""> being presented to the registry in documenting an asserted ‘sale’ of rights.</div><div class=""> </div><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 class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Once I have solid understanding of your accuracy model, it will be possible to understand</div><div class="">what changes in mission/agreements/etc would be necessary if the community wished</div><div class="">to move in that direction. It appears to represent a significant shift from tracking the legal</div><div class="">rights to address blocks in the registry that we presently perform.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks!</div><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><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">PPML<br class="">You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br class="">the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" class="">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br class="">Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br class=""><a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" class="">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br class="">Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>