North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: more on filtering

  • From: Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
  • Date: Fri Oct 31 11:28:45 2003

> >> 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 engineers trying to be lawyers.

Hey, it's only fair - I'm trying to be a network engineer. :-)

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 

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 P. Mitchell, Esq.
Institute for Spam & Internet Public Policy
Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of SJ