[72084] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Can a customer take their IPs with them? (Court says yes!)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Robinson)
Tue Jun 29 13:59:41 2004
From: "Paul Robinson" <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:47:48 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C45DDF.AA34E560
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In an attempt to add a little more light than heat to this issue, let me =
add my .02 Euros. I am not a lawyer although I've had to defend myself =
in court a few times, so I do know a few things.
This is a temporary restraining order. These are commonly issued "ex =
parte" meaning at the request of one of the parties and may even be done =
where the other party did not even show up or was given notice. The =
purpose is to "preserve the status quo." The court apparently - from =
the description of the TRO - issued it verbatim as the plaintiff filed =
it. I doubt the court even knew what half the terms on the order meant. =
I had trouble and I'm somewhat familiar with Internet networking.
In the case at hand, it may be that the contract with the provider could =
in theory have allowed immediate repossession of the IP address space =
which was loaned to them in the event they changed providers. In which =
case, if the company that has the particular IP space, allowing them to =
have their address range "snatched away" from them immediately would =
constitute irreparable harm, since it can take up to a week for an =
address change to propagate throughout the Internet.
A Temporary Restraining Order is intended to keep things as they are at =
the time it was issued, until such time as a court has the opportunity =
to hear evidence and to make a decision. Generally they are issued =
subject to the following conclusions:
1. The party asking for the order (the plaintiff, here) is quite likely =
to suffer irreparable harm if the relief requested by the order is not =
granted.
2. The party to whom the order is issued against (the defendant, here) =
either will not suffer harm as a result of the order or the amount of =
harm is minor or substantially less than that which would occur to the =
other party if the order isn't granted..
There are additional conditions involved, but these are the two most =
important. Here, allowing the customer to keep the number on a =
temporary basis while the court decides the issue does not necessarily =
harm the defending ISP and failing to do so would probably be =
devastating to the customer.
Now, to the extent the customer has other options (such as using the =
number block which they have been assigned directly) will provide the =
court with a reasonable solution as to why the TRO should be dissolved =
after the customer has some reasonable time to correct the problem, e.g. =
to renumber their systems and advertise the new routes to the various =
routers and DNS systems might require, say 7-10 days. =20
Also, if the contract between the company and the ISP provides them =
sufficient protection to allow them the time necessary to renumber and =
reroute then the need for the TRO becomes moot. However, if the =
contract was silent on this point or explicitly allowed immediate =
repossession then the TRO may have been a valid issue in order to =
preserve the status quo for the time being until the issue can be sorted =
out.
This is the basic reason such decisions are issued, so that things can =
remain as they are until the court can figure out who is entitled to =
relief. It does not necessarily mean the customer will win or even has =
a valid cause of action, it just simply means that it is less =
catastrophic to the ISP to require they not "yank" the IP addresses from =
the customer than it would be to allow them to do so, pending the =
outcome of the actual trial on the merits of the issues involved.
Please excuse me if this is obvious, but I thought it might help.
--
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is
that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/P d-(-)>-- s+:+++ a+ C++ UL--->$ P+ L+>$ !E W++>$ N++ !o !K-- w+>--$ =
O->- !M-- !V- PS+++>$ PE !Y !PGP t> !5 !X !R tv+ b++++(++++)>++++ DI() =
D++>++ G> e> h+(+)>$ r> y+**(+)=20
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C45DDF.AA34E560
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>In an attempt to add a little more light than heat =
to this=20
issue, let me add my .02 Euros. I am not a lawyer although I've =
had to=20
defend myself in court a few times, so I do know a few =
things.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>This is a temporary restraining order. These =
are=20
commonly issued "ex parte" meaning at the request of one of the parties =
and may=20
even be done where the other party did not even show up or was given=20
notice. The purpose is to "preserve the status quo." The =
court=20
apparently - from the description of the TRO - issued it=20
verbatim as the plaintiff filed it. I doubt the court=20
even knew what half the terms on the order meant. I had =
trouble and=20
I'm somewhat familiar with Internet networking.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>In the case at hand, it may be that the contract =
with the=20
provider could in theory have allowed immediate repossession of the IP =
address=20
space which was loaned to them in the event they changed =
providers. In=20
which case, if the company that has the particular IP space, allowing =
them to=20
have their address range "snatched away" from them immediately would =
constitute=20
irreparable harm, since it can take up to a week for an address change =
to=20
propagate throughout the Internet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>A Temporary Restraining Order is intended to keep =
things as=20
they are at the time it was issued, until such time as a court has the=20
opportunity to hear evidence and to make a decision. Generally =
they are=20
issued subject to the following conclusions:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>1. The party asking for the order =
(the plaintiff,=20
here) is quite likely to suffer irreparable harm if the relief =
requested by=20
the order is not granted.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>2. The party to whom the order is issued =
against (the=20
defendant, here) either will not suffer harm as a result of =
the order=20
or the amount of harm is minor or substantially less than that which =
would occur=20
to the other party if the order isn't granted..</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>There are additional conditions involved, but these =
are the=20
two most important. Here, allowing the customer to keep the number =
on a=20
temporary basis while the court decides the issue does not necessarily =
harm the=20
defending ISP and failing to do so would probably be devastating to the=20
customer.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Now, to the extent the customer has other =
options (such=20
as using the number block which they have =
been assigned directly)=20
will provide the court with a reasonable solution as to why the TRO =
should be=20
dissolved after the customer has some reasonable time to correct the =
problem,=20
e.g. to renumber their systems and advertise the new routes to the =
various=20
routers and DNS systems might require, say 7-10 days. =
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Also, if the contract between the company and the =
ISP provides=20
them sufficient protection to allow them the time necessary to renumber =
and=20
reroute then the need for the TRO becomes moot. However, if the =
contract=20
was silent on this point or explicitly allowed immediate repossession =
then the=20
TRO may have been a valid issue in order to preserve the status quo for =
the time=20
being until the issue can be sorted out.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>This is the basic reason such decisions are issued, =
so that=20
things can remain as they are until the court can figure out who is =
entitled to=20
relief. It does not necessarily mean the customer will win or even =
has a=20
valid cause of action, it just simply means that it is less catastrophic =
to the=20
ISP to require they not "yank" the IP addresses from the customer than =
it would=20
be to allow them to do so, pending the outcome of the actual trial on =
the merits=20
of the issues involved.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Please excuse me if this is obvious, but I thought =
it might=20
help.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV><FONT size=3D2>
<DIV>--<BR>Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go =
on..."<BR>"...And=20
continue!"<BR>"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is<BR>that =
nobody=20
learns the lessons that history teaches us."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR>-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----<BR>Version: 3.1<BR>GCS/P =
d-(-)>--=20
s+:+++ a+ C++ UL--->$ P+ L+>$ !E W++>$ N++ !o !K-- w+>--$ =
O->-=20
!M-- !V- PS+++>$ PE !Y !PGP t> !5 !X !R tv+ b++++(++++)>++++ =
DI()=20
D++>++ G> e> h+(+)>$ r> y+**(+) <BR>------END GEEK CODE=20
BLOCK------ </FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0017_01C45DDF.AA34E560--
