[AusNOG] Re RackCentral

Tue Nov 18 09:57:34 EST 2014

I don't know the particular circumstances either (or have any inside info), but for those transit providers you've mentioned I assume that there would have been contracts signed. For those providers to show some support and "not allow them to continue to operate" would most likely require them to break these contracts (and potentially expose themselves to compensation or legal action). If it can be proven that somewhere along the line the assets were transferred illegally, then perhaps there might be scope for this, but at the moment the suppliers would probably be in breach of contract if they terminated the services to rackcentral.v2. It would be nice if contracts included a 'douchebag' clause, but unfortunately I don't think many of them do.
The same goes for APNIC. They too are reliant on ASIC to investigate claims of trading/transfer of assets whilst insolvent,  they can't take the assets back until this is proven to have happened. If this can't/isn't proven, then "officially" it's all legit and nobody really has a legal leg to stand on for any sort of action against the new company.
This of course doesn't make it "morally" right, but you can't on one hand complain about rackcentral getting out of contracts by selling the assets and changing name and then in the same breath suggest that suppliers who have contracts with rackcentral.v2 should be allowed to terminate their contracts.
It's quite possible that when these new contracts were signed none of this had really happened yet (insolvency, not paying Vocus). Companies change names and unless the transit providers had some reason to be suspicious they probably had no reason not to sign a contract with rackcentral.v2. I do note that 2/3 transit you've mentioned are NOT Australia based ones and so they may not have had any personal dealing with the people/companies involved or done anything more than a general check on things. And no offence intended to Spirit Telecom, but I haven't heard of them and it would appear that their only upstream transit is from AAPT exclusively, so I'm not sure they're a big player.
I'm going to get down off my soapbox too now, thanks for reading. I'm not trying to incite argument, just trying to point out that you can't expect contracts to be honoured and then suggest that other people should breach contracts to show support for contracts not being honoured.

regards,Tony.(IANAL)
      From: Andrew Tschudi <ausnogandrewtschudi at gmail.com>
 To: Joseph Goldman <joe at apcs.com.au> 
Cc: "ausnog at lists.ausnog.net" <ausnog at lists.ausnog.net> 
 Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2014, 8:14
 Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Re RackCentral

Rack Central walking away from the debt has already taken precedencewhich is a kick in the mouth for anyone.
Thanks to Rack Central you can now assume if you don’t pay Vocusyou can walk away from your contract and debt, keep running your business andthey cannot make you pay anything.
Rack Central stopped paying Vocus and in return AS7600 ( escape.net) AS45177 ( Layer2.co.nz ) and AS38790 (Spirit Telecom Australia) not tomention IX Australia all provide safe haven to allow them to continue tooperate.
Not even APNIC has stepped in to take back IP address resources.Whilst it’s against APNIC policy to transfer IP addresses if a company is insolventRack Central has proven APNIC do not care about policy.
Unless every network operator decides to black hole RackCentrals AS58443 you will always findsomeone willing to sell them services as the hope of a new sale even comesbefore industry respect of those who are owed money.
Andrew

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Joseph Goldman <joe at apcs.com.au> wrote:

I think he is taking a nod at the recent discussion over NextDC's month-to-month offering and the argument that ensued ;)

To the other poster saying it must be a drop in the ocean to them - well....yes maybe, they will survive happily never recovering it, just a shorter month to pay it all out and write it all off - but its about precedence. If they let one customer get away with it then all customers will start trying it.

What is the point of commitments if they can be so easily broken? You take a commitment term you take the responsibility of any debt it incurs.

Not knowing much about the business or Shaun directly, from an outside view it does seem very dodgy though, the sale of the customers to another company with such similar name and same director(s), while leaving behind ~$100k in debt (if not including the extra compensation Vocus is trying for).

The best we can do as an industry is blacklist these people so they can't continue their wake of destruction. The only acceptable way to let these people back in to the industry is if they have a fair go at repaying their past mistakes.

Shooting a bit off-topic though into personal rant so I'll leave it at that.

On 18/11/14 07:55, Mark Foster wrote:

On 18/11/2014 4:28 a.m., Scott Howard wrote:

/"Minutes from the first creditors meeting show that Vocus is trying
to claw back $1.48 million. It is understood this sum represents the
full value of RackCentral's contract with Vocus, cut short due to the
liquidation./
/
/
/"The contract was not due to expire until 2016 and they [Vocus] have
included in their claim all the outstanding rentals for the remainder
of the term," said Quin./

If only someone offered monthly contracts instead of 2-3 years!!!

:)

I really, really hope you're taking the piss here.

Vocus would've committed to resources with their suppliers/vendors/etc
and will no doubt have taken a substantial financial committment on, on
the basis of that contract. I hope they manage to get at least some
compensation for things.

Mark.

_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

_______________________________________________
AusNOG mailing list
AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20141117/049e5c76/attachment-0001.html>