North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Motion for a new POST NSF AUP
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 *
|