(UPDATE) Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)

Wed Jun 30 13:16:46 UTC 2004

Question:
What would be the practical effects of a court decision if a 3rd party ISP:
1) buys NAC;
2) inherit the PA space;
3) and *operating* from abroad (non-US), anounces the same portion of PA
space the court said belongs to the customer.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:

>
>
> * Alex Yuriev wrote:
>
> > 	Judge grants the TRO.
> > 	Defendant waves arms on nanog-l.
> >
> > Moral -
> >
> > 	When a legal system is involved, use the legal system, not the
> > 	nanog-l. The former provides provides ample of opportunities to
> > 	deal with the issues, while the later only provides ample of
> > 	opportunities to do hand waving.
>
> I would like to make a few comments on this and other posts that have been
> made in response to my original post last night.
>
> First of all, there is no question that there is a contractual dispute
> between NAC and the Customer. There is a lengthy complaint filed by the
> Customer against NAC, alleging a variety of things.
>
> Next, the more important issue. While there is a dispute between NAC and
> the Customer, as mentioned above, I am *NOT LOOKING FOR COMMENTS ON THE
> ACTUAL LAWSUIT* from nanog-l.  I am not waving my arms about the lawsuit,
> as Alex implies above.
>
> What I AM looking for is a commentary from the internet community,
> strictly relating to the fact that a judge has issued a TRO that forces an
> ISP (NAC) to allow a third-party, who WILL NOT be a Customer of NAC, to be
> able to use IP Space allocated to NAC. In other words, I am asking people
> to if they agree with my position, lawsuit or not, that non-portable IP's
> should not be portable between parties, especially by a state superior
> court ordered TRO.
>
> This issue has been misunderstood, in that there is belief by some that
> the Customer should be allowed some period of grace for renumbering. I
> want to remind people that this Customer has had ARIN allocations for over
> 15 months.  Also, recall that Customer has terminated service with us, and
> we would still allow them to be a Customer of ours if they so choose. This
> fact is undisputed as evidenced by the filing of certain public documents.
>
> With the above being said, I solicit comments on the following
> certification:
>
> Those would like to make a certification on behalf of their business:
>
> 	http://www.nac.net/cert.pdf
>
>
> Those would like to make a certification on behalf of themselves:
>
> 	http://www.nac.net/pcert.pdf
>
>
> Forgetting the facts of the case, for the moment, I think we all agree
> with the terms of this certification. The above does not ask for anyone to
> form an opinion about the case. It asks Internet Operators, as a
> community, if portability of non portable space is bad. If you agree, I
> ask you to execute this certification as an amicus brief, and fax it to us
> at 973-590-5080.
>
> Thank you for your time on this matter, it is truly appreciated. Please do
> not take the above that I do not appreciate all the commentary. As I say
> above, my point is that I am not trying to have a trial in a public forum,
> but, more importantly, I am verifying that our opinion regarding IP
> portability is one that the community as a whole shares.
>
>
> -- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, alex at nac.net, latency, Al Reuben --
> --    Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net   --
>
>

./Carlos
--------------                    http://www.ip6.fccn.pt/nativeRCTS2.html

         Wide Area Network (WAN) Workgroup, CMF8-RIPE, CF596-ARIN
FCCN - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional  http://www.fccn.pt

 "Internet is just routes (140068/465), naming (millions) and... people!"