I'll point out that someone banning a site for AUP violations should only be able to affect their own network, since policies are supposed to be organization-level. (Thus, inflicting your policy decision on someone else is a very gray area, legally and ethically.)

unless there's a bgp routing leak, in violation of both policy and intent, there is no way to inflict your policy decision on someone against their will. this is because all traffic in an AS is paid for by at least one party (the sender, or the recipient, or the agent of one or the other) who has a contract with the owner of the capital plant making up that AS. in AS6461's case, every customer agreement ever signed includes a binding reference to the AS6461 AUG. any traffic blocked by the AS's owner by way of enforcing that AUG is perfectly within that AS owner's rights.

..., in this case, AboveNet is inflicting policy decisions on transit routes =without consent=. (It's obvious this is without consent, otherwise this thread would never have come up.)

obvious to you perhaps, but incorrect nevertheless. the complainer has since had their contract read to them and has learned that they did in fact consent to this type of policy-related blockage, by signing agreement to that contract. -- Paul Vixie <pvixie@mmfn.com> CTO and SVP, MFN (NASDAQ: MFNX) AboveNet, PAIX, and MIBH are subsidiaries of Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.