On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:17:36PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: Hi,
There are many instances in the business world where a court prohibits you from disconnecting services to a customer so that their business can continue to operate, such as during chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. You should really be *glad* that they ARE paying you, and especially at the rates mentioned in their affidavit, for that much longer. Or perhaps you are seeing something in this that I am not?
This is more than the court prohibiting NAC from terminating this customer (on their request!).. The TRO says: (f) NAC shall permit UCI to continue utilization through any carrier or carriers of UCI's choice of any IP addresses that were utilized by, through or on behalf of UCI under the April 2003 Agreement during the therm thereof (the "Prior UCI Addresses) and shall not interfere in any way with the use of the Prior UCI Addresses. I don't know about you, but I read this as a court converting non-portable address space to portable address space, without looking at the consequenses for ARIN, NAC and network operators around the world who need to utilize more RAM in their routers to store additional routes simply because they are to ignorant to follow the technical guidelines and policies of ARIN. And I find this situation highly undesirable, regardless of any of the other facts mentioned in the legal documents (which I have read, thanks for those). And then I'm not even taking into account the fact that the UCI/Pegasus is a well-known spammer (http://www.spews.org/html/S2649.html). -- Sabri, "I route, therefore you are" Bescherm de digitale burgerrechten: http://www.bof.nl/donateur.html