[27995] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean Donelan)
Tue Apr 4 12:29:52 2000
Date: 4 Apr 2000 09:26:09 -0700
Message-ID: <20000404162609.10998.cpmta@c004.sfo.cp.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 03 April 2000, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> Because one party -- the originator -- marks an electronic communique as a
> >> confidential communication, does that really require the reciever to keep
> >> it confidential?
> > Professional courtesy.
>
> or one nanoclue if you think you want anyone to talk to you.
Gordon is a reporter, professionally what would you expect? Did Gordon
do anything different than the New York Times did with the Pentagon Papers?
Besides the law of large numbers is working against you. Although a few
people may not talk to Gordon, if you send a "confidential" communication
to large group of people with no duty to keep it secret, someone will talk.
Since peering is listed as a significant risk factor in many SEC filings,
I'm wondering whether it will be considered a material piece of information
for one or both of the parties. If it was important enough to notify
Exodus' customers, was it also important enough to notify investors? Was
Gordon shorting the stock?
