-----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 != logic. Daryl
I'm well aware that law!=logic. 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 != logic.
Daryl
-- If it wasn't signed, it probably didn't come from me.
participants (2)
-
daryl＠introspect.net -
Owen DeLong