[64713] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: more on filtering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.)
Fri Oct 31 11:26:38 2003
From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq." <amitchell@isipp.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 08:23:38 -0800
In-reply-to: <2147483647.1067587911@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> >> I don't see how that is the same thing here. I have an
> >> agreement with cust X to provide services in accordance with
> >> my AUP. cust X resells that service to cust Y, etc. cust Y
> >> is bound to the terms and conditions of my agreement with
> >> cust X, despite that I do not have a direct agreement with cust Y.
> >
> > Oh christ...network engineers trying to be lawyers.
Hey, it's only fair - I'm trying to be a network engineer. :-)
The concept about which the original poster is speaking is probably
that of either "sub-licensees" or "third party beneficiaries"
(different things, but he is probably thinking of one of those two
concepts).
In the former, it means that his *users* are bound by the same
criteria as is he if he makes a contract with someone (it was the
concept we used at Habeas to bind ISP users if an ISP signed a
license with Habeas). The latter, third party beneficiaries, is
*actually* what one would need to bind a users' own customers to the
users' contract, and that must be spelled out explicitly in the
contract between ISP and customer X.
Anne
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
President/CEO
Institute for Spam & Internet Public Policy
Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of SJ
