-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Parker Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 9:01 PM To: Alex Yuriev Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: more on filtering
[...]
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. I don't know much, but I do know that legal agreements in the US are NOT transitive in this way, unless each agreement is included by reference in the other. Daryl
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.
I don't know much, but I do know that legal agreements in the US are 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. Owen -- If it wasn't signed, it probably didn't come from me.
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
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.
I don't know much, but I do know that legal agreements in the US are NOT transitive in this way, unless each agreement is included by reference in the other. They aren't legally, but they are effectively. If X must abide by your AUP, then any traffic they forward for Y must also abide by your AUP (or whatever penalties are in your contract with X will kick in) - it doesn't matter what X's contract with Y says, as your contract is with X and any penalties are to be applied to X; It is
daryl@introspect.net wrote: therefore in X's best interest to insist Y abides by the AUP or indemnifies X for any penalties, and/or negotiates with you to make sure only Y's traffic is cut off on breach of the AUP by Y, rather than all traffic from X.
I don't know much, but I do know that legal agreements in the US are NOT transitive in this way, unless each agreement is included by reference in the other. They aren't legally, but they are effectively.
Ok, enough legal debate. Let me use a strictly US analogy: The death penalty for shooting a cop is a legal deterrent, but a wise cop still wears a bulletproof vest. Filter to protect your own network, and, when necessary and possible, your customers from each other and the Internet from your customers. Legalisms punish, after the fact. -- Barney Wolff http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf I'm available by contract or FT, in the NYC metro area or via the 'Net.
participants (5)
-
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. -
Barney Wolff -
daryl＠introspect.net -
Dave Howe -
Owen DeLong