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, [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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!"