Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
Justin Newton
justin at rainbow.dgsys.com
Tue Oct 17 09:10:41 UTC 1995
The only question that I have is what does this do to your position as a
"common carrier like" organization? It weakens it horrendously. I wish
that it didn't, and when I start my ISP up, Jan 1st (as opposed to the
one I am working for now), I will have an AUP, but just be aware, it
/does/ weaken your position as a "common carrier like" organization. It
is at that point that you should start to seriously consider removing
binaries groups and other things, and finding a way to act immediately on
things like someone saying that one of your users violated a copyright
law or the like. I am not advocating one way or the other, just saying
that you should stand to one side of the road or the other, not the middle.
I plan to stand on the side where I can have an AUP, and plan to have my
lawyer make a fair number of decisions on things like what do I do when
someone tells me a user has violated copyright, etc etc. I also plan to
purchase news services from someone else in the beginning so that I am
not a news distributor, I am only giving people a way to view it (News
will never be stored on my systems). Maybe when the water gets a little
less rocky I'll start using my own news server. Those decisions are
mine, not yours, you can of course make your own. I made mine after
hours of consultation with my lawyer, as well as talking to several other
lawyers. You should do the same.
On Sun, 15 Oct 1995, Tim Bass wrote:
>
> John Curran and I are in total agreement on John's premise that any
> Post NSF AUP is either a) unenforceable or b) subject to abuse. I suggest
> that for the moment, that we agree with John that any AUP is both:
>
> a) Unenforceable;
> b) Subject to abuse; and
> c) Virtually impossible to authenticate.
>
> Giving the above, the question still remains and the original motion is still
> valid for this reason.
>
> If we define a Post NSF AUP, then at least everyone who uses the Internet
> will have had the opportunity to have read and understood what the current
> Internet AUP describes.
>
> It is possible that having a clearly defined AUP will not stop spam and
> other unacceptable uses of the net, and clearly an AUP is not enforceable
> ( and for IP security reasons should not be enforced without absolute
> authentication as John correctly points out).
>
> On the other hand, having a clearly defined AUP may discourage potential
> spammers and child pornographers, etc. (not that we consider spammers
> and child pornography peddlers in the same vein..). Also, having a
> clearly defined Internet AUP will send a signal to the news media and
> government officials that the providers of Internet services are
> capable of formulating policy in an area that, without self-regulation,
> has a strong potential to continue degenerating.
>
> Is a self-formulated Post NSF AUP, without enforcement, still a good idea?
>
> The answer, I suggest, is not obvious, but a debate on the subject
> does have considerable merit, given the events of the past week or so.
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
>
> --
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Tim Bass | #include<campfire.h> |
> | Principal Network Systems Engineer | for(beer=100;beer>1;beer++){ |
> | The Silk Road Group, Ltd. | take_one_down(); |
> | | pass_it_around(); |
> | http://www.silkroad.com/ | } |
> | | back_to_work(); /*never reached */ |
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
Justin Newton * You have to change just to stay caught up.
Vice President/ *
System Administrator *
Digital Gateway Systems *
More information about the NANOG
mailing list