[AusNOG] Alumina vs AINS Update

[Nick Brown]

On 14/12/10 9:25 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> # The situation is extremely unclear on whether Pacnet is or should be 
> liable for this situation as even after they were informed.  Unlike 
> AINS who claimed a legal contractual right to announce the routes, 
> Pacnet in no way had that right to re-announce them.  This specific 
> situation is not targeted at Pacnet, who were just paralysed by this 
> confusing situation, but to all upstreams who may contribute to the 
> actions of their customers.
This one is tricky and I can understand why Pacnet were in such a 
difficult situation *without* taking into account that a company of 
their size would not have the level of agility a small ISP would 
(Although one would assume Pacnet would have a highly skilled legal team 
at their disposal).

Without a contractual obligation to the disputing party, yet contract 
clauses authorising their customer to advertise space (Presumably 
delegating the responsibility of gaining consent) how can they act 
without shooting themselves in the foot?

Nick.