[ppml] Fw: Can a Customer take their IP's with them? (Court says yes!)

[Richard A Steenbergen]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 07:06:52PM -0400, Ed Allen Smith wrote:
> 
> ARIN can't enforce anything. But is anything stopping other providers
> than NAC from ignoring any publication by NAC that is forced by the TRO
> (and any publication from another ISP that the customer in question 
> moves to)?

Either:

a) You don't want to end up with NAC being accused of indirectly inciting 
   a violation of the TRO, which would be a contempt of court,

or

b) You don't want to contribute to the Denial of Service against a 
   company which is doing nothing more than correctly trying to protect 
   its best interests in a contractual dispute by seeking legal remedies.

Your choice.

You might also want to consider actually reading the complaint before you
start planning vigilante justice. The TRO is really more about the orderly
continuation of an existing contract for IP transit and colocation
services at existing rates (which are *significantly* higher than current
market rates mind you), than it is about portable or non-portable IP
space.

The bottom line is that there is no harm for the provider to continue
providing service under the existing terms, while the perceived issues
named in the complaint are considered by the court. In fact, it is a MAJOR
monetary advantage for the provider, they get to continue selling services
at an extremely high price compared to the current market for that much
longer.  Under these circumstances, TRO's are routinely granted to prevent
a provider from intentionally causing harm to the business of a customer
they know they won't be keeping. IP addresses barely come in to play here,
except as a generator of knee-jerk reactions from folks on mailing lists.

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <ras at e-gerbil.net>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)