[107754] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Gibbard)
Fri Sep 12 15:02:12 2008
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 12:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve Gibbard <scg@gibbard.org>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <872B38BF-232D-4798-A764-5B1486A77791@ianai.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Fri, 12 Sep 2008, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> Going back a bit in case you forgot, we were discussing the fact you have NO
> RIGHT to connect to my network, it is a privilege, not a right. You
> responded with: "If I have either a peering agreement ... then that contract
> supports my 'rights' under that contract persuant to my responsibilities
> being fulfilled." Then you posted this contract as an example of those
> "rights". From the contract you claim to be "a great model":
Calm down, Patrick. :)
It's probably correct that any individual player in this industry not
under other regulatory restrictions can refuse to do business with
somebody they don't like, sometimes. For the industry as a whole to make
a group decision to not do business with somebody who may be a competitor
seems more legally risky. Engaging in that sort of thing without getting
some good legal advice first would certainly make me nervous.
Since this appears to be somebody who is contracting with lots of US
providers, their identity is presumably known. This discussion has now
been going on for long enough that it's presumably passed the emergency,
"act now; think later," phase. Should what they're doing be a law
enforcement issue, rather than a "they've got cooties" issue?
-Steve
