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!)

  • From: alex
  • Date: Tue Jun 29 18:39:40 2004 
> > > Hi James,
> > >  i would agree except NAC seems to have done nothing unreasonable and are
> > > executing cancellation clauses in there contract which are pretty standard. The
> > > customer's had plenty of time to sort things and they have iether been unable to
> > > or unwilling to move out in the lengthy period given.
> > 
> > How do you arrive at this conclusion? Did you read the filings? This is not
> > the customers position. Since I have only the customers filings and the judges
> > TRO online it maybe that NAC has counter claims of their own.  However
> 
> The customer's unhappy.. but I dont see anything bad going on here.. 

It is very simple - 

	Plaintiff files a motion.
	Defendant tries to have it dismissed (or maybe for whatever reason 
			decides that as the network engineers they
			don't care about what a court has to say and ignores it)
	Plaintiff shows that he has a case.
	Defendant is unable to convince a judge that the plaintiff is full
	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.

> The customer's wording is sloppy for a legal doc and they have silly
> points raised, like because nac wont accept payment by credit card they
> are forced to pay off their outstanding balance hence having to pay twice
> (one to the card one to nac) .. well duh .. thats how it works.
> Non-portability of IP space is well known, sure, its hard work and I
> wouldnt wish to do it but its normal - right?

	The customer wording happened to be excellent - and TRO is a proof
of it. The court does not care about the good of internet and
portability/non-portability of IP address space because it is not the case
in front of it.

> Presumably the judge is unsure and doing what seems to be a sensible option.. 

	Never presume. Always file.
 
Alex