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.)
The reason why MAPS-RBL works (and is legally protected) is because everyone who uses it must -consent- to using it, and take positive action on their end to configure it. This means that each organization generates and enforces their own policy, though with assistance from an outside consultancy. However, 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.)
It brings up an interesting point, but the law has held in the past that boycotts are only effective and legal if they’re voluntary, and if coercion is involved then it become “intimidation tactics” of “organized crime”. I can’t for the life of me imagine how the Internet is any different – maybe if you tried to apply turnpike or private highway rules to it, but those rules are generally based on consent, as well.
Just some thoughts…
-Mat Butler
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.
hmm, what if this is a case where the transit route was capturing other
routes
and disconnecting them, does the backbone carrier have the right to drop
that
route? Is it moral and ethical, in my opinion it is.
Mathew Butler wrote: