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

[Paul Wouters <paul () xtdnet nl>]

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Alex Rubenstein wrote:

> 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.

What the initial mail you send didnt contain however was two vital pieces
of information:

1) NAC made (and contractually can make) changes to a customer contract
   with only a 45 day notice. Normal business practise is in the order of
   three months (90 days)
2) According to the ex-customer, they are working on migrating to their own  
   IP range, but cannot finish this in 45 days. 

You suggested that the customer was "too lazy to renumber", which was
as far as I read the online court documents was not what they wrote.
They wanted more time to migrate.

> form an opinion about the case. It asks Internet Operators, as a
> community, if portability of non portable space is bad.

"to give ex-customer an extra numbers of days to migrate away"

> but, more importantly, I am verifying that our opinion regarding IP
> portability is one that the community as a whole shares.

I believe this is a cornercase well handled by the courts. It is not
about permanently breaking ICANN/ARIN policies, but about a
temporary situation between two parties in conflict.

Paul
-- 

<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.