* Alex Yuriev wrote:
Judge grants the TRO.
Defendant waves arms on nanog-l.
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
Those would like to make a certification on behalf of their business:
Those would like to make a certification on behalf of themselves:
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
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.