Re: Re Parler

[Masataka Ohta]

Mike Bolitho wrote:


List admins, for real. This has run its course just like I said it would
several days ago. It is 100% speculative, has nothing to do with network
operations, and requires actual lawyers with access to the case information
and witnesses to figure out what's going on.


No lawyers are required to figure out what's going on with
parler.com resolves to be 0.0.0.0, which has a lot to do with
network operations, implication of which is hard to be
understood by lawyers, for which there should be no useful
case information.


And as Jay said, it's getting stupid.


That parler.com resolves to be 0.0.0.0 is, certainly,  stupid.

Masataka Ohta

Re: Re Parler

[John Sage]

On 1/14/21 4:09 PM, Mike Bolitho wrote:

And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get
moderated, before
anyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge. 



List admins, for real. This has run its course just like I said it would 
several days ago. It is 100% speculative, has nothing to do with network 
operations, and requires actual lawyers with access to the case 
information and witnesses to figure out what's going on. And as Jay 
said, it's getting stupid.


I second the motion.

I've been following this issue very closely since the start on what 
might be called Legal Twitter (actual attorneys practicing actual law at 
the Federal level in civil, criminal, appellate, constitutional and 
intellectual property cases) and it's become painfully clear that 98% of 
the people replying to this topic here have


1) no idea what they're talking about, and

2) a more- and more-obvious political/philosophical agenda of one stripe 
or another


I've been wholesale deleting for days now.

Put a stake in 'er, Jim, she's dead.


- John
--

Re: Re Parler

[Mike Bolitho]

>
> And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get moderated,
> before
> anyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge.


List admins, for real. This has run its course just like I said it would
several days ago. It is 100% speculative, has nothing to do with network
operations, and requires actual lawyers with access to the case information
and witnesses to figure out what's going on. And as Jay said, it's getting
stupid.

- Mike Bolitho


On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 5:00 PM Jay R. Ashworth  wrote:

> - Original Message -
> > From: "Mel Beckman" 
>
> > John,
> >
> > What’s your point? Are you saying that it’s OK for an ISP to break
> antitrust
> > laws for a political cause?
>
> No, Mel.
>
> In very short, he's saying that criminal sedition and armed insurrection
> *are
> not political causes*, and I am adding that hitching your star to that
> wagon
> may shorten your career as much as it's shortening the careers of the
> people
> who were in Washington.
>
> And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get moderated,
> before
> anyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge.
>
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> --
> Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink
> j...@baylink.com
> Designer The Things I Think   RFC
> 2100
> Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land
> Rover DII
> St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647
> 1274
>

Re: Re Parler

[Jay R. Ashworth]

- Original Message -
> From: "Mel Beckman" 

> John,
> 
> What’s your point? Are you saying that it’s OK for an ISP to break antitrust
> laws for a political cause?

No, Mel.

In very short, he's saying that criminal sedition and armed insurrection *are
not political causes*, and I am adding that hitching your star to that wagon
may shorten your career as much as it's shortening the careers of the people
who were in Washington.

And now, with prejudice, I'm requesting that this thread get moderated, before
anyone *else* volunteers to jump off a bridge.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth  Baylink   j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think   RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates   http://www.bcp38.info  2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA  BCP38: Ask For It By Name!   +1 727 647 1274

Re: Re Parler

[Mel Beckman]

John,

What’s your point? Are you saying that it’s OK for an ISP to break antitrust 
laws for a political cause? To bring this discussion back into the realm of 
operational discussions, shouldn’t we be building infrastructure that has the 
audit and change management components needed to detect ill-advised actions 
like Amazon’s?

I recently read that Theranos IT conveniently “lost the keys” to the encrypted 
database files that are key evidence in the DOJ’s fraud case against them. 
Clearly there is an ethical case for us as technologists to treat these events 
in a non-partisan way. The days of “I was just following orders” are long gone.

 -mel 

> On Jan 14, 2021, at 1:47 PM, John Levine  wrote:
> 
> In article <70e9-8be1-483c-8e49-e9cda6b4a...@beckman.org> you write:
>> Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three 
>> companies would simultaneously pull the plug on
>> their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain 
>> to a judge. 
> 
> Aw, come on.  Judges have even beeen known to read the papers or turn on the 
> TV
> now and then.
> 
> R's,
> John

Re: Re Parler

[John Levine]

In article <70e9-8be1-483c-8e49-e9cda6b4a...@beckman.org> you write:
>Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies 
>would simultaneously pull the plug on
>their services for a single common customer is going to be hard to explain to 
>a judge. 

Aw, come on.  Judges have even beeen known to read the papers or turn on the TV
now and then.

R's,
John

Re: Re Parler and its very underprepared attorney

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

> Per reporting by Katherine Long of the Seattle Times, during
> that hearing Parler's attorney:
> 
>   - forgot the name of Parler's CEO
> 
>   - stated that he's unfamiliar with some of the terminology
>   because he's not on social media
> 
>   - admitted that he filed a day late because he needed to
>   update his PACER account

This is because, if reports can be believed, Parler's own lawyers abandoned 
ship a few days ago.

> I am not an attorney but my general understanding is that if you wish
> to file a civil complaint against multiple defendants that you should
> actually go through the trouble of naming them all as defendants on the
> complaint (and serving them).

It's actually not uncommon to include unnamed defendants  - however, in order 
to do so, and in order to reserve the ability, one needs to include in the list 
of defendants something  like "And Does 1-10', or such (or request leave to 
amend the complaint).

Given everything everything, I'd say it's pretty clear that this attorney took 
the case at the 11th hour.  He is a patent and other IP issues attorney - which 
this case is not.

Anne

--
Anne P. Mitchell,  Attorney at Law
Dean of Cyberlaw & Cybersecurity, Lincoln Law School
CEO, SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)ultant
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Chair Emeritus, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Former Counsel: Mail Abuse Prevention System (MAPS)

Re: Re Parler

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 11:01:19AM -0700, Keith Medcalf wrote:
> This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is 
> likely)

The first hearing in this case was held today.

Per reporting by Katherine Long of the Seattle Times, during
that hearing Parler's attorney:

- forgot the name of Parler's CEO

- stated that he's unfamiliar with some of the terminology
because he's not on social media

- admitted that he filed a day late because he needed to
update his PACER account

This is the same attorney who filed Parler's complaint -- the one that
names Twitter as a defendant in section 5 while omitting them from the
title page of the complaint.  Here, look for yourself:

PARLER LLC v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664/gov.uscourts.wawd.294664.1.0.pdf

Read the first sentence of section 5.  It's on page 3.  Oh heck,
let me save you the trouble:

"Thus, AWS is in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act in combination with Defendant Twitter."

I am not an attorney but my general understanding is that if you wish
to file a civil complaint against multiple defendants that you should
actually go through the trouble of naming them all as defendants on the
complaint (and serving them).

---rsk

Re: Re Parler

[Ge DUPIN]

Interesting ! Money can buy many things 
Best
Ge

> Le 14 janv. 2021 à 20:43, Rod Beck  a écrit :
> 
> Folks, 
> 
> There is a political dimension here. Sedition. Parlet is a hornets nest of 
> right wing extremism. 
> 
> The courts will take that into account. 
> 
> Moreover, Parlet's financial resources will evaporate very quickly and with 
> it any lawsuit. 
> 
> I think it is time to bury this issue as a discussion topic. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Roderick. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: NANOG  on 
> behalf of Keith Medcalf 
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 7:01 PM
> To: Mel Beckman ; adamv0...@netconsultings.com 
> 
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
> Subject: RE: Re Parler
>  
> 
> On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman  wrote:
> 
> >I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because
> >I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to
> >the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts
> >managed to get the pages out of order).
> 
> >And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of
> >termination. Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s
> >weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s
> >data so that Parler could “move to another provider.” You would only do
> >that in a termination.
> 
> >Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three
> >companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a
> >single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge.
> 
> >Right now I think Amazon’s safest escape from this mess is to restore
> >Parlor’s services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do
> >business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance
> >notice (Parler learned of Amazon’s termination from the news, since
> >Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers).
> 
> >However you look at this, Amazon’s actions have huge implications for
> >anyone using them for operational networking.
> 
> This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is 
> likely) *AND* the FTC imposes a billion dollar fine against Amazon for their 
> Fraudulent business practices.
> 
> Otherwise, Amazon will not change their Fraudulent Business Practices because 
> they will determine that the COST associated with Fraudulent Business 
> Practices is negligible, and there continues to be no shortage of stupid 
> customers who, for some reason, insist on placing TRUST in the inherently 
> UNTRUSTWORTHY, even when it that UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS has already been 
> demonstrated as fact.
> 
> -- 
> Be decisive.  Make a decision, right or wrong.  The road of life is paved 
> with flat squirrels who could not make a decision.

Re: Re Parler

[Rod Beck]

Folks,

There is a political dimension here. Sedition. Parlet is a hornets nest of 
right wing extremism.

The courts will take that into account.

Moreover, Parlet's financial resources will evaporate very quickly and with it 
any lawsuit.

I think it is time to bury this issue as a discussion topic.

Regards,

Roderick.






From: NANOG  on behalf 
of Keith Medcalf 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 7:01 PM
To: Mel Beckman ; adamv0...@netconsultings.com 

Cc: nanog@nanog.org 
Subject: RE: Re Parler


On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman  wrote:

>I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because
>I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to
>the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts
>managed to get the pages out of order).

>And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of
>termination. Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s
>weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s
>data so that Parler could “move to another provider.” You would only do
>that in a termination.

>Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three
>companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a
>single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge.

>Right now I think Amazon’s safest escape from this mess is to restore
>Parlor’s services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do
>business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance
>notice (Parler learned of Amazon’s termination from the news, since
>Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers).

>However you look at this, Amazon’s actions have huge implications for
>anyone using them for operational networking.

This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is 
likely) *AND* the FTC imposes a billion dollar fine against Amazon for their 
Fraudulent business practices.

Otherwise, Amazon will not change their Fraudulent Business Practices because 
they will determine that the COST associated with Fraudulent Business Practices 
is negligible, and there continues to be no shortage of stupid customers who, 
for some reason, insist on placing TRUST in the inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY, even 
when it that UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS has already been demonstrated as fact.

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

RE: Re Parler

[Shamil K via NANOG]

The wiki (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230) page has this

> The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection 
> from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the 
> removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, 
> even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good 
> faith.

On 14 January 2021 3:37:41 pm IST, Keith Medcalf  wrote:
>
>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  On Behalf Of
>>Jeff P
>>Sent: Wednesday, 13 January, 2021 10:43
>>To: nanog@nanog.org
>>Subject: Re Parler
>>
>>ICYMI: Amazon's response to Parler Antitrust relief:
>>
>>https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_Ama
>>zon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0010.0.pdf
>>
>>JeffP
>>je...@jeffp.us 
>>
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: Re Parler

[William Herrin]

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:13 AM  wrote:
> (b) Termination for Cause.
> (i) material breach remains uncured for a period of 30 days from receipt of 
> notice

It's fairly clear from Amazon's communications that this is their
basis for terminating Parler. They began notifying Parler in September
that Parler's content moderation efforts were not acceptable, offered
examples and used progressively stronger language to express their
dissatisfaction with Parler's remedies. I suppose it remains to be
seen whether a court will accept the argument but there's no need to
speculate about what their argument is.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
Hire me! https://bill.herrin.us/resume/

Re: Re Parler

[Alain Hebert]

    Good to here since you're either part of:

        . Parler legal team;

        . Amazon legal team;

        . Pervue of all the communication between both corporation;

    ... or just a Parler user ... is my guess.

-
Alain Hebertaheb...@pubnix.net
PubNIX Inc.
50 boul. St-Charles
P.O. Box 26770 Beaconsfield, Quebec H9W 6G7
Tel: 514-990-5911  http://www.pubnix.netFax: 514-990-9443

On 1/14/21 1:01 PM, Keith Medcalf wrote:

On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman  wrote:


I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because
I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to
the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts
managed to get the pages out of order).
And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of
termination. Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s
weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s
data so that Parler could “move to another provider.” You would only do
that in a termination.
Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three
companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a
single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge.
Right now I think Amazon’s safest escape from this mess is to restore
Parlor’s services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do
business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance
notice (Parler learned of Amazon’s termination from the news, since
Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers).
However you look at this, Amazon’s actions have huge implications for
anyone using them for operational networking.

This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is 
likely) *AND* the FTC imposes a billion dollar fine against Amazon for their 
Fraudulent business practices.

Otherwise, Amazon will not change their Fraudulent Business Practices because 
they will determine that the COST associated with Fraudulent Business Practices 
is negligible, and there continues to be no shortage of stupid customers who, 
for some reason, insist on placing TRUST in the inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY, even 
when it that UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS has already been demonstrated as fact.

RE: Re Parler

[adamv0025]

Shut , so the boilerplate termination of agreement for any reason with 30 day 
notice was indeed part of the contract?
-so they forgot to bump the default up I guess, but anyways wouldn't help them 
either way.

Was there anything else in the contract that would allow amazon to terminate 
the contract in less than 30days (termination for cause maybe)?
 
(b) Termination for Cause.
(i) material breach remains uncured for a period of 30 days from receipt of 
notice  -30 days again,...
(ii) By Us. We may also terminate this Agreement immediately upon notice to you 
(A) for cause if we have the right to suspend under Section 6  <- 6. 
Temporary Suspension. -I guess that's what you was referring to right?
(B) if our relationship with a third-party partner who provides 
software or other technology we use to provide the Service Offerings expires, 
terminates or requires us to change the way we provide the software or other 
technology as part of the Services  -this would affect everybody on the 
platform hard to justify singling out one customer  
(C) in order to comply with the law or requests of governmental 
entities. -also not the case right?


Section 6:
6. Temporary Suspension.
6.1 Generally. We may suspend your or any End User’s right to access or use any 
portion or all of the Service Offerings immediately upon notice to you if we 
determine:

(a) your or an End User’s use of the Service Offerings 
(i) poses a security risk to the Service Offerings or any third party, 
(ii) could adversely impact our systems, the Service Offerings or the 
systems or Content of any other AWS customer, 
(iii) could subject us, our affiliates, or any third party to 
liability, or 
(iv) could be fraudulent;

(b) you are, or any End User is, in breach of this Agreement;

(c) you are in breach of your payment obligations under Section 5; or

(d) you have ceased to operate in the ordinary course, made an assignment for 
the benefit of creditors or similar disposition of your assets, or become the 
subject of any bankruptcy, reorganization, liquidation, dissolution or similar 
proceeding.

So if AWS acted according to section 6 then I guess only point (a) options are 
remotely plausible, but I guess any of the points there would be hard to proof. 
 
In any case it's a pretty powerful tool to have in a contract this section 6. 
(especially with subsection (a) which seem to provide a lot of options for 
interpretation and manoeuvring space)


adam

-Original Message-
From: Mel Beckman  
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 5:02 PM
To: adamv0...@netconsultings.com
Cc: Keith Medcalf ; nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Re Parler

I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because I read 
the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to the one 
posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts managed to get 
the pages out of order).

And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of termination. 
Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s weaselwording, 
because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s data so that Parler 
could “move to another provider.” You would only do that in a termination.

Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies 
would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a single common 
customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge. 

Right now I think Amazon’s safest escape from this mess is to restore Parlor’s 
services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do business with 
Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance notice (Parler learned of 
Amazon’s termination from the news, since Amazon gave the media a scoop before 
notifying its customers).

However you look at this, Amazon’s actions have huge implications for anyone 
using them for operational networking.

 -mel 

> On Jan 14, 2021, at 7:48 AM, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> Medcalf
>> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:06 PM
>> 
>> 
>>> On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 04:53, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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 do you know that this is the contract that was in effect?  
> No you're right I don't and neither do you so arguing about whether the 
> Communication Decency Act section 230 was violated is useless without knowing 
> contents of the contract. 
> 
> 
> 
>>> With reg

RE: Re Parler

[Keith Medcalf]

On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 10:02, Mel Beckman  wrote:

>I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because
>I read the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to
>the one posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts
>managed to get the pages out of order).

>And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of
>termination. Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s
>weaselwording, because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s
>data so that Parler could “move to another provider.” You would only do
>that in a termination.

>Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three
>companies would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a
>single common customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge.

>Right now I think Amazon’s safest escape from this mess is to restore
>Parlor’s services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do
>business with Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance
>notice (Parler learned of Amazon’s termination from the news, since
>Amazon gave the media a scoop before notifying its customers).

>However you look at this, Amazon’s actions have huge implications for
>anyone using them for operational networking.

This result will only come to pass if Parler wins their lawsuit (which is 
likely) *AND* the FTC imposes a billion dollar fine against Amazon for their 
Fraudulent business practices.

Otherwise, Amazon will not change their Fraudulent Business Practices because 
they will determine that the COST associated with Fraudulent Business Practices 
is negligible, and there continues to be no shortage of stupid customers who, 
for some reason, insist on placing TRUST in the inherently UNTRUSTWORTHY, even 
when it that UNTRUSTWORTHYNESS has already been demonstrated as fact.

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

Re: Re Parler

[Mel Beckman]

I, however, do know that this is the contract that was in force. Because I read 
the lawsuit, and the contract, which I’ve verified is identical to the one 
posted online, is included as an exhibit (although the courts managed to get 
the pages out of order).

And yes, Amazon had a duty to provide 30 days notice in advance of termination. 
Amazon says they are calling this a “suspension”, but that’s weaselwording, 
because they told Parler that they had secured Parler’s data so that Parler 
could “move to another provider.” You would only do that in a termination.

Parler also has an excellent antitrust case, as the idea that three companies 
would simultaneously pull the plug on their services for a single common 
customer is going to be hard to explain to a judge. 

Right now I think Amazon’s safest escape from this mess is to restore Parlor’s 
services, and pay them damages. Otherwise, why would anyone do business with 
Amazon if they can pull the rug out with zero advance notice (Parler learned of 
Amazon’s termination from the news, since Amazon gave the media a scoop before 
notifying its customers).

However you look at this, Amazon’s actions have huge implications for anyone 
using them for operational networking.

 -mel 

> On Jan 14, 2021, at 7:48 AM, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> 
> 
>> 
>> Medcalf
>> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:06 PM
>> 
>> 
>>> On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 04:53, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> 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 do you know that this is the contract that was in effect?  
> No you're right I don't and neither do you so arguing about whether the 
> Communication Decency Act section 230 was violated is useless without knowing 
> contents of the contract. 
> 
> 
> 
>>> 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 have never ever seen that in any contract to which I am a party.  
> Well let's just say our experience on the matter differs.
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> So, that is Cisco's problem, not yours.  I would take the position that if 
>> Cisco
>> no longer wants to take money then that is their choice and it has absolutely
>> zero effect on the validity of the license (in fact, the license is now 
>> free).
> Well taking this position is of no real help if the router (or any product) 
> stops working after a period of time (i.e. when licenses expire).
> The only valid question then is whether one can migrate off of the product 
> onto something else in time. 
> 
>> Of
>> course, it depends on what the contract says, if it says anything at all 
>> that is
>> relevant.
>> 
> And that was the question I was trying to raise, to see whether/how folks 
> usually capture this eventuality in their contracts with vendors. 
> 
> 
> 
>>> 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..
>> 
>> Yes.
> Hmm, that doesn’t feel right, so if it just so happens that while I'm renting 
> a car the rental company goes under I now own the car?
> I mean if a license gives me right to use a product for a period of time and 
> when the license expires, wouldn't my right to use the product expire as 
> well? 
> (i.e. regardless of the fact that I didn't get a chance to renew the license, 
> cause well the entity with which I could do so doesn't exist anymore).
> 
> adam  
> 

RE: Re Parler

[adamv0025]

> Medcalf
> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 1:06 PM
> 
> 
> On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 04:53, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:
> 
> >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 do you know that this is the contract that was in effect?  
No you're right I don't and neither do you so arguing about whether the 
Communication Decency Act section 230 was violated is useless without knowing 
contents of the contract. 



> >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 have never ever seen that in any contract to which I am a party.  
Well let's just say our experience on the matter differs.


> 
> >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.
> 
> So, that is Cisco's problem, not yours.  I would take the position that if 
> Cisco
> no longer wants to take money then that is their choice and it has absolutely
> zero effect on the validity of the license (in fact, the license is now free).
Well taking this position is of no real help if the router (or any product) 
stops working after a period of time (i.e. when licenses expire).
The only valid question then is whether one can migrate off of the product onto 
something else in time. 

> Of
> course, it depends on what the contract says, if it says anything at all that 
> is
> relevant.
> 
And that was the question I was trying to raise, to see whether/how folks 
usually capture this eventuality in their contracts with vendors. 



> >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..
> 
> Yes.
Hmm, that doesn’t feel right, so if it just so happens that while I'm renting a 
car the rental company goes under I now own the car?
I mean if a license gives me right to use a product for a period of time and 
when the license expires, wouldn't my right to use the product expire as well? 
(i.e. regardless of the fact that I didn't get a chance to renew the license, 
cause well the entity with which I could do so doesn't exist anymore).

adam  

RE: Re Parler

[Keith Medcalf]

On Thursday, 14 January, 2021 04:53, adamv0...@netconsultings.com wrote:

>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 do you know that this is the contract that was in effect?  That is an 
assumption of fact not in evidence.  Furthermore, that provision requires at 
least 30 days notice.  If that clause was in effect AND it was used as you 
suggest THEN UNLESS at least 30 days notice was given the plaintiff Parler is 
entitled to specific performance of the contract and/or aggravated/punitive 
damages for Amazon's violation of the contract terms.

>How/where does the above violate the Communication Decency Act section
>230?

It does not.

>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.

Why anyone in their right mind would enter into such a contract is beyond my 
ken and would only be done by a lunatic.

>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 have never ever seen that in any contract to which I am a party.  Plus you 
are also claiming that a "contract of adhesion" is a valid contract, which it 
is not (at least not in countries with rational legal systems).

>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?

That is your own business issue and as a party to the contract, you are free to 
negotiate contract terms as you please.

>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.

So, that is Cisco's problem, not yours.  I would take the position that if 
Cisco no longer wants to take money then that is their choice and it has 
absolutely zero effect on the validity of the license (in fact, the license is 
now free).  Of course, it depends on what the contract says, if it says 
anything at all that is relevant.

>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?

Unless you are stupid, you do.  However in my experience there is a large 
quantity of stupid people in the world.

>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..

Yes.

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

RE: Re Parler

[adamv0025]

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  On Behalf Of 
Keith Medcalf
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:08 AM
To: nanog@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  On Behalf Of 
>Jeff P
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 January, 2021 10:43
>To: nanog@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
>je...@jeffp.us <mailto:je...@jeffp.us>
>
>

RE: Re Parler

[Keith Medcalf]

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  On Behalf Of
>Jeff P
>Sent: Wednesday, 13 January, 2021 10:43
>To: nanog@nanog.org
>Subject: Re Parler
>
>ICYMI: Amazon's response to Parler Antitrust relief:
>
>https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/pdfserver/LHNWTAI/137249864/Parler_LLC_v_Ama
>zon_Web_Services_Inc__wawdce-21-00031__0010.0.pdf
>
>JeffP
>je...@jeffp.us 
>
>