[64721] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: more on filtering
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Oct 31 12:14:41 2003
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 09:11:25 -0800
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
To: daryl@introspect.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9C7A3E5A42361642983F68FF090D11F8022003@noc0.bmpc.int>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==========5A76DB6ADE4529D83C98==========
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
I'm well aware that law!=3Dlogic. In fact, I have often said that there
are two sayings which when recombined provide a more accurate picture
of the true situation in the american legal system:
1. Possession is no excuse.
2. Ignorance is 9/10th of the low.
(Fee free to run that past your attorney as well)
I was stating that although legally, I can't do anything to X's customer
directly, I certainly can, for example, block all traffic from Y at
my ingress points if X won't get Y to correct their behavior. As such,
while the agreement is not legally transitive, the authority it gives
me allows me to effectively deal with Y indirectly. Obviously, it also
provides an incentive for X to deal with Y directly, but, while I can't
effect legal remedy against Y, the contract does allow me to effect
network remedy against Y by dropping Y where X connects to me.
Owen
--On Friday, October 31, 2003 11:18 AM -0500 daryl@introspect.net wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 11:12 AM
>> To: Daryl G. Jurbala; nanog@merit.edu
>> Subject: RE: more on filtering
>>
> [...]
>
>> > NOT transitive in this way, unless each agreement is included by
>> > reference in the other.
>>
>> Yes and no. If my agreement with cust X says that they take
>> responsibility for ensuring that any customers to whom they
>> resell my service (or any traffic they transit into my
>> network, to be more specific) must conform to my AUP, then
>> the fact that it is cust Y that originated the violating
>> traffic has little effect. I can still hold cust X
>> responsible. As a good guy and for good customer service, I
>> will, instead, first ask X to hold Y accountable and rectify
>> the situation. If that doesn't work, you bet X will get
>> disconnected or filtered.
>
> I 100% agree with this (other than the first three words;) ). But
> legally, the agreement is not transitive. Legally it's YOUR customer
> only that is responsible to your AUP. It follows logically, but not
> legally, that your customer binds their customers to an AUP that is at
> least as restrictive as yours, or YOUR CUSTOMER will be in breach with
> you, if their customers exercise practices violating your AUP...whether
> they are "allowed" to in the contract with their upstream or not.
>
> I'm speaking legally only (yes, by random chance, I had my contract
> attorney on the phone when I first read this post). Logically, you're
> correct....but law !=3D logic.
>
> Daryl
>
--=20
If it wasn't signed, it probably didn't come from me.
--==========5A76DB6ADE4529D83C98==========
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (Darwin)
iD8DBQE/opfBn5zKWQ/iqj0RAk2sAJ9mi1N0zZcbWArp4Dbmu/gJqN3IXwCdEPy5
LUaFeHNCfYD3bIeQufZL9no=
=fUcV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==========5A76DB6ADE4529D83C98==========--
