|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Matthew Crocker wrote: > The TRO is irrelevant, The courts made the wrong decision, did anyone > actually think they would have a clue? Actually, after reading most of the papers which Richard just made available at http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/ I don't see that court made an incorrect decision (it however should have been more clear enough on when TRO would end in regards to ip space). If you read through http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras/nac-case/plantiff-affidavit1.pdf you'll see that NAC was blackmailing their client because they knew they could not quickly move out and so it permitted them to charge highier fees then they did other customers. Now, I do note that is probably just one side of the story, so likely there would be another side as this progresses through court (hopefully Richard will keep the webpage current with new documents), atlthough I have to tell you what I saw mentioned so far did not show NAC or its principals in the good light at all. Now as far as TRO, its by definition "temporary order", but I do wish that the temporary part was more emphasised as far as IP addresses and it was made clear that client MUST work on moving out of their existing NAC ip blocks and that space is not theirs to keep and they MUST given it to back to NAC. Now "reasoanble timeframe" is not exactly very precise defition (although this is what RFC2050 says I think), ARIN usually allows for 12 months as far as "reasonable" timeframe to renumber, personally I think this is MAX timeframe to do so and as far as TRO should be taken as last deadline, but that court must set shorter deadline and review process (like ever 3 months) to make sure client is complying and moving out or NAC space. If that is done, I would not have a problem with TRO. -- William Leibzon Elan Networks [email protected]
|