From: "Nigel Clarke" <nigel@forever-networks.com>
To: "Jeff Ogden" <jogden@merit.edu>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Subject: RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all
ISPs?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:01:54 -0700
Jeff,
In a nutshell you're saying do nothing.
I actually got the impression that he was recommending that the
ISP/backbone providers be careful in what they do since it is the end
user that should determine who they communicate with. (I may have read
this wrong though.)
If an ISP or backbone provider does take any action(s) of the sort
discussed, I would make really, really sure that the action is in
accordance with the written policies...
I also have the impression that, given the current state of litigation
(both public and civil), that if a case (suit) were ever raised against
NANOG and specific members by the RIAA, that these messages show a
clear case for conspiracy...
I an NOT a lawyer so you might want to consult with one...
My own $0.02 worth.
Regards,
Gregory Hicks
From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of
Jeff Ogden
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2002 7:42 AM>However, this type of action might not be necessary at all.
>
>Some of the users on this list think RIAA's recent actions are
nothing more
>than empty threats.
>Why doesn't NANOG make a few of its own?
>
>A "polite" letter from a NANOG representative should do the trick.Just to state the obvious, no one is authorized to represent NANOG in
this fashion, not even folks here at Merit. NANOG isn't a decision
making organization. NANOG isn't something that can take actions
(other than holding a few meetings each year and managing this e-mail
list).Individuals and organizations that participate in NANOG can take
actions, but not in NANOG's name. I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that
lawyers should be consulted before taking individual or coordinated
action of the sort being suggested against another organization.Of course IPSs do take action against individuals or organizations
all of the time, but they need to do that based on policies and
procedures that take into account their obligations to their
customers as well as their obligations under the law.As an end user I really don't want my ISP to make decisions about who
is allowed to communicate with me or who I am allowed to communicate
with except when those decisions are based on policies designed to
protect me or others from serious problems (DDOS attacks and the
like), even then I want those policies to be written and available so
I can review them, and I want them to be applied fairly.As an ISP I really don't want my upstream ISPs to make decisions
about who is allowed to communicate with my network or who my network
is allowed to communicate with except under the conditions outlined
in my agreements with those ISPs. This is important to me if I am in
turn going to be able to meet my obligations to my own end users.So, I really don't want the RIAA to tell me or my upstreams who I
can't communicate with, but neither do I want my upstreams to tell me
that I can't communicate with the RIAA or the labels if I (or really
my customers) want to do so.-Jeff Ogden
Merit Network>However, this type of action might not be necessary at all.
>
>Some of the users on this list think RIAA's recent actions are
nothing more
>than empty threats.
>Why doesn't NANOG make a few of its own?
>
>A "polite" letter from a NANOG representative should do the trick.
>
>From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf
Of
>J.A. Terranson
>Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 7:01 PM
>To: Nigel Clarke
>Cc: Richard A Steenbergen; Jerry Eyers; nanog@merit.edu
>Subject: RE: Eat this RIAA (or, the war has begun?) - Why not all
ISPs?
>
>> >
>> > Why don't larger ISPs follow through on this? Simply deny RIAA
any
>> > access...
>>
>> And what IPs precisely are you planning to deny? So far its all
idle
>> threats, we have no idea where they plan to launch their scans or
hacking
>> attempts from, or even if they have any clue how to hack anything.
I