Re Parler

Thu Jan 14 11:53:01 UTC 2021

https://aws.amazon.com/agreement/
7.2 Termination.
(a) Termination for Convenience. You may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing us notice and closing your account for all Services for which we provide an account closing mechanism. We may terminate this Agreement for any reason by providing you at least 30 days’ advance notice.

How/where does the above violate the Communication Decency Act section 230?
See AWS can claim they terminated the contract because it was sunny outside and they just felt like it, in other words using section 7.2 (a) of their customer agreement.

With regards to business continuity, 

My experience is that the above is a standard clause in all contracts (and 30 days is pretty standard as well),
I know we negotiated longer advance notices with some of our vendors, but I'm actually not sure what it says on our contracts with say big router vendors? 
Do you folks?
If say Cisco tells you one day that "in 30days we stop taking your support calls cause we don't feel like working with you anymore", and you'd be like omg the license on the 32x100G core cards will expire in 2 months and I can't renew cause these guys won't talk to me anymore.

Also an interesting business continuity case is when a vendor goes under (yes highly unlikely in case of AWS/Juniper/Cisco/etc..), but do you have contractual terms governing this case? 
What if you're licenses are about to expire say in 2 months and the vendor goes under? Even if the product still works can you actually legally use it? Do you own it then? Etc..

adam

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+adamv0025=netconsultings.com at nanog.org> On Behalf Of Keith Medcalf
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:08 AM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: RE: Re Parler

I thought y'all yankee doodles had this thing called the Communication Decency Act section 230 that prevented a "service provider" from being responsible for the content of third-party's -- whether or not they were acting as a publisher; and, also the principle of law that an agreement to violate the law (as in a Contract which ignored that provision that the "service provider" was not liable for the content provided by third-parties) was nul ab initio?

Therefore it would appear to me that AWS has not a leg to stand on, that the terms of the contract which violate section 230 constitute a prior agreement to violate the law and therefore are a nullity, and that Parler is entitled to specific performance of the contract and/or damages, including aggravated or punitive damages, from Amazon.

The only exception would be if the "content" were Criminal and that would require a court finding that the content was Criminal but, such facts not in evidence, Amazon has violated the law and should be held liable.  You cannot convict someone of murder and have them executed simply because they have a hand which may hold a gun which may then be used to commit murder in order to prevent the murder.  

First there must be establishment of the fact of the murder, not the mere establishment of a hypothetical fantasy of fact.

But then again it is likely that the lawyers representing Parler are of low ability and unable to make the case required.

--
Be decisive.  Make a decision, right or wrong.  The road of life is paved with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+kmedcalf=dessus.com at nanog.org> On Behalf Of 
>Jeff P
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 January, 2021 10:43
>To: nanog at nanog.org
>Subject: Re Parler
>
>ICYMI: Amazon's response to Parler Antitrust relief:
>
>https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_A
>ma zon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0010.0.pdf
>
>JeffP
>jeffp at jeffp.us <mailto:jeffp at jeffp.us>
>
>