North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Cogent/Level 3 Contracts (was: Cogent/Level 3 depeering)

  • From: Michael.Dillon
  • Date: Fri Oct 07 11:19:23 2005

> > Rather than speculation, it would be helpful to refer to the actual
> > contracts.  Please post the relevant sections, Mr Wilcox.
> the contract talks of on-net traffic, off-net traffic and excused 
> excused outages includes that of third party network providers
> off-net traffic has a 99% SLA excluding excused outages.

One interesting point that came up in an off-list message
that I received was the topic of arbitration. Would anyone
be in a position to estimate how many peering agreements
include an arbitration clause such as this one:

I have no relationship with CIDRA, but since they are in
Chicago, a major trading center, and they offer international
arbitration, I thought they were an appropriate example. 
In the non-Internet world of telecommunications, the 
state PUCs handle arbitration of interconnect disputes but
that is because this role is embedded in the Telecommunications
Act of 1966.

Other arbitration services include
who are tied in to the NAFTA agreements,

Here is a quick summary of US arbitration law

Seems to me that the ideal here would be for the industry
to agree on a dispute resolution mechanism and for all bilateral
peering agreements to include the same arbitration clause. For
this kind of arbitration to function well, the arbitrators need
to have some understanding of the industry and the technology.
This can only be accomplished by selecting one arbitration
organization to handle all the arbitration duties for the whole

Airing dirty landry in public like this hurts the whole industry, 
not just Level 3 and Cogent in particular. The solution is to
use binding arbitration clauses in all interconnect agreements
whether settlement-free, paid peering or settlement-based.

--Michael Dillon