more on filtering

Fri Oct 31 17:11:25 UTC 2003

I'm well aware that law!=logic.  In fact, I have often said that there
are two sayings which when recombined provide a more accurate picture
of the true situation in the american legal system:

	1.	Possession is no excuse.
	2.	Ignorance is 9/10th of the low.

(Fee free to run that past your attorney as well)

I was stating that although legally, I can't do anything to X's customer
directly, I certainly can, for example, block all traffic from Y at
my ingress points if X won't get Y to correct their behavior.  As such,
while the agreement is not legally transitive, the authority it gives
me allows me to effectively deal with Y indirectly.  Obviously, it also
provides an incentive for X to deal with Y directly, but, while I can't
effect legal remedy against Y, the contract does allow me to effect
network remedy against Y by dropping Y where X connects to me.

Owen

--On Friday, October 31, 2003 11:18 AM -0500 daryl at introspect.net wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 11:12 AM
>> To: Daryl G. Jurbala; nanog at merit.edu
>> Subject: RE: more on filtering
>>
> [...]
>
>> > 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.
>
> I 100% agree with this (other than the first three words;) ).  But
> legally, the agreement is not transitive.  Legally it's YOUR customer
> only that is responsible to your AUP.  It follows logically, but not
> legally, that your customer binds their customers to an AUP that is at
> least as restrictive as yours, or YOUR CUSTOMER will be in breach with
> you, if their customers exercise practices violating your AUP...whether
> they are "allowed" to in the contract with their upstream or not.
>
> I'm speaking legally only (yes, by random chance, I had my contract
> attorney on the phone when I first read this post).  Logically, you're
> correct....but law != logic.
>
> Daryl
>

-- 
If it wasn't signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20031031/ed669892/attachment.sig>