InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)

Patrick W. Gilmore patrick at
Sun Sep 14 11:52:29 CDT 2008

On Sep 12, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Steve Gibbard wrote:
> 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":

> 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.

"The industry as a whole"?

And who in their right minds considers Atrivo or InterCage a  
competitor?  Are you upset at InterCage for lost child pr0n customers?

> 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?

You have been around more than long enough to know better than that  

And you should be more consistent.  Is this a US problem or an  
Internet problem?


More information about the NANOG mailing list