InterCage, Inc. (NOT Atrivo)
Patrick W. Gilmore
patrick at ianai.net
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
More information about the NANOG