|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: peering wars revisited? PSI vs Exodus
> Hi Paul > > 1. I am doing what press is HERE to do. *INFORM* So, it's acceptable to publish a leaked circuit design? Software design? Source code? All those things are marked Company Confidental too... Where does it stop... > 2. I am sure you can figure out that this was sent to me by an > affected party who wanted it leaked. That's irrelevant. > 3. This concerns the ability of a publicly traded company to give > its customers adequate service on the Internet. PSI is not the Internet. PSI is becoming more and more irrelevant as their customers go elsewhere. > 4. Exodus certainly had to tell its content providers that they were > gong to face problems in getting to somewhere between 5 and 10% of > the Internet. Is reduced capacity a 'problem' per se? Unless you've got their traffic stats, I don't see how you can make this claim. > 5. But Exodus was also embarrassed by the deterioration in its > service that it was allowing to be inflicted on its customers. So > Exodus, in an attempt to limit the damage, marked the email > "customer confidential communication." Maybe they just don't want to make a public announcement every time a peering arrangement changes, and maybe they don't want to deal with people overreacting over such a change. > 6. I am NOT an Exodus customer! And since I am press I have a > personally reasonable obligation, should I choose to exercise it, to > inform people that some important peering links have been broken. The fact that you're not an Exodus customer means you shouldn't have received that in the first place; regardless of the 'wishes' of the person that leaked it to you, the intended distribution is quite clear on that message. > 7. Exodus has a problem. In marking that customer confidential it > appears to me that it was trying to cover up its own problem and I > imagine in doing so it was making some already upset customers > further upset. I don't see how an Exodus problem or lack thereof justifies poor ethical behaviour. > 8. The sender of the message quite explicitly said I hope the press > covers this. Therefore there was not a shred of doubt as to his > intent. So? > In my opinion, if someone chooses to leak it to me, except for my > relationship to the leaker, I have no obligation to exodus or anyone > else. My default mode of operation has always been to keep the > identity of the leaker CONFIDENTIAL. It is a subject of interest to > me and I think to list readers. -snip- If you were truly trying to cover this, in a journalistic sense, why not talk to PSI, and ask them about it? Of late, they've been promoting a supposedly open peering policy...what would make a company that claims to peer with anyone that will drag a line to them sever that connection, or did they? I can think of all sorts of obvious questions to be asking people in both places, and you don't appear to have asked any of them. I think that many of us would have no problem with you reporting the information, had you done so without leaking that notice. Reporting consists of a lot more than leaking confidential information. --msa
|