> On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:25 PM, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: > > John, > > On Jun 4, 2015, at 4:22 AM, John Curran <jcur...@arin.net > <mailto:jcur...@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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
