[KLUG Advocacy] An informal legal view of the no NAT law...

Robert G. Brown advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org
Wed, 02 Apr 2003 10:45:39 -0500


>>>We selected attorney's who are on our payroll, since they
>>>are the ones who will defend us in court if anything ever
>>>comes of this.  Yikes!  :-)
>>One of the attornies who I've asked to comment is not only knowledgable
>>about the tellecommunications industry, but would have to represent his
>>employer in case of some problem with laws like this, and has done so in
>>the past. When I get his comments, I'll post that, too.
>Please do, this is potentially a big deal; especially to those of use with
>dozens of T1s, frame relay, and DSL circuits, not to mention a hand full of
>really god awful telepoly contracts (the thought of going through those in
>light of this will start to give me grey hair).

I think the core point made in the first lawyers' posting is:
"What it means is that when you connect to a telecommunications provider,
your contract should specify what you may and may not do with it, and
you need to abide by that.  Probably everyone should review their
contracts to make sure they say what you intend and don't prohibit what
you mean to do."

It wouldseem that if you've done the above, probably to the letter, you
will be ok. Heck, Adam, you have some lawyers around there, ask them, too!

						Regards,
						---> RGB <---