On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 07:47:54PM -0400, 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.
As I read that TRO, for the period of time the customer continues to use the IP space they will also be a customer of NAC (i.e. they will continue to pay you money for IP transit and colocation services at existing contract amounts and existing contract rates, which happen to be significantly above current market rates). I don't see a disconnection between the two. This is a completely different situation from the one you describe, which is a customer who has completed an orderly termination without an ongoing legal dispute and simply wishes to continue using their IPs for an indefinite periods of time, without paying you for it or buying any other services from you. It seems that they are only asking for the orderly continuation of services so that they can migrate their assets (both physical and virtual, servers and IPs) to new resources without disruption of their business. 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? -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)