RE: more on filtering

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

daryl@introspect.net wrote:

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
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 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. :slight_smile:

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 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.