[9352] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Cost vs benefit of internet services
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karl Denninger)
Thu Dec 30 01:09:25 1993
From: karl@mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
To: ittai@ans.net (Ittai Hershman)
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 00:07:43 -0600 (CST)
Cc: karl@mcs.com, matthew@echo.com, stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com, com-priv@psi.com,
In-Reply-To: <CMM.0.90.2.757227121.ittai@shemesh.ans.net> from "Ittai Hershman" at Dec 29, 93 11:52:01 pm
> > I would like to see the actual reason why a network provider is
> > PROHIBITED from allowing subsidiary providers to have CIX routing.
>
> You are not prohibited from doing so. However, whether or not another
> network provider <chooses> to accept your indirect routes is <up to them>.
> The CIX agreement only <protects> direct routes. In fact, it is clearly
> stated that nothing in the agreement shall prohibit or otherwise prevent
> private agreements between providers on any terms whatsoever. [...]
>
> As a CIX member I can sell you a connection that you can resell,
> if I choose to do so. I cannot, in clear conscience, <guarantee>
> that your customers will be able to reach all the other CIX
> members and direct customers, although I certainly can guarantee
> (if I want) that you can reach my customers in any form
> whatsoever.
>
> Karl,
>
> It would be very helpful to me (and I suspect others on this list) to
> see whatever written material you have which has led you to this
> understanding. I have been struggling to understand the current CIX
> policies, in general, since they do not appear to be clearly written
> down anywhere -- aside from the membership agreement which is
> ambiguous on this very important issue. Upon asking Bill Washburn
> about this issue, I was informed that the CIX Board had discussed this
> at their most recent meeting and, as a start, decided to write down
> the historical working definition that has been in force for the past
> two years. That working definition (see below) appears to contradict
> your understanding.
>
> -Ittai
> To: ittai@ans.net
> From: washburn@cix.org (Bill Washburn)
> Subject: working definition
>
> Ittai--
> Here's a working definition... Bill
>
> All customers of a standard CIX member have access to the CIX except for
> "resellers" of IP service. "IP service" is defined as direct TCP/IP access
> to the Internet with the assigning of a IP network number to an individual
> or organization. As such any customer of a CIX member who is an IP
> reseller will not have access to the CIX for itself or for the indviduals
> or organizations it provides service to.
That does not parse with what the membership agreement that I have executed
says. The specific policies are (I have my copy right here; its still warm):
CIX agrees to....
2) To discuss and consider issues that will improve the efficiency
and interconnectivity of the Members use of public networks.
....
4) To promote the greater connectivity of public networks.
....
Member agrees as follows:
9. Members shall cooperate and coordinate their activities to facilitate
the broadest practical opportunity for interconnectivity among
the direct customers of each member and participating OSPNSPs. A
member shall not in a discriminatory manner (as between other
Members) or without reasonable justification decline to offer CIX
interconnectivity to its direct customers. <Provided, however, that
notwithstanding any of the foregoing, any member shall be able to
offer virtual private networks, to administer traffic and/or access
restrictions for particular networks where requested or if required
to provide special services, or to offer other special services
subject to specified limitations, TO ENTER INTO SEPARATE
INTERCONNECTIVITY AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER MEMBERS, TO ALLOW
INTERCONNECTIVITY BETWEEN INDIRECT CUSTOMERS THROUGH CIX OR
OTHER NETWORKS>, and otherwise to comply with requests from
customers or users for restrictions or limitations on the receipt,
routing or delivery of messages.
10) NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED TO PROHIBIT OR RESTRAIN
THE ENTRY BY ANY MEMBER INTO ANY SEPARATE CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT
WITH ANY OTHER MEMBER OR THIRD PARTY ON ANY TERMS.
----- End excerpts
Now, anything which doesn't follow that agreement is a breach of contract.
(Before anyone bothers to ask, this is the document which is on the CIX
FTP site). That contract is sealed with consideration and a meeting of
the minds. I would suspect that it should be reasonably easy to enforce
if it ever became necessary. I do not believe it will.
One of three things appears to be true, given the agreement and statement
you quoted above:
1) The statement is out of context and parses differently than it did
in the original, full version.
2) An error of speech was made. I suspect Bill would like to correct
the misconception.
3) I am going to enjoy my CIX membership. :-)
--
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.COM) | MCSNet - First Interactive Internet and
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900] | Clarinet feed in Chicago. Send email to
Voice/FAX: [+1 312 248-8649] | "info@mcs.com" for more information.
