RE: more on filtering

[<daryl () introspect net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen () delong com] 
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 11:12 AM
> To: Daryl G. Jurbala; nanog () 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