[AusNOG] Urgent - Pacnet NOC contact (with BGP clue)

[Noel Butler]

On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 20:54 +1100, Cee Four wrote:
> Skeeves and AusNOG members,
> 
> 
> Before naming names we should all look at the possibility of resolving
> disputes through the judicial system rather then vilification on a
> public mailing list.
> 


> AusNOG from what I understood was a respected community containing
> professionals from the IT Industry, now it seems that this is thrown
> out the window for more of a "Fight club" style of dirty punches.

Professionals post from real accounts that identify themselves, they
dont hide behind a free email service that harbours spammers,
miscreants, and those who think they are anonymous.



> 
> Seeing as the current participants in this thread want more
> information lets put some more on the table;
> 
> 
> Lets look at the creditability of the thread creator. Correct me if I
> am wrong Skeeve but is the below not you?
> 


Regardless of Skeeves history, which even I recently reminded him of
here on this very list, the actions of AINS are modern, current and
affecting many now, and despicable!
This is not something Skeeve is doing causing this, so his history is
really irrelevant in this case.


> With regards to respectable companies like PACNET. Why drag them into
> this when clearly you Skeeve stated that this was related to a
> "billing dispute".
> 


PACNET were advised a customer of theirs is wrongfully advertising
routes they have no right to, PACNET (which have gone to utter SHIT
since China Netcom sold them in, what was it, '06/07?) have decided they
dont give a shit, so I think its fair to out them for this and be named
in court injunction.


> 
> @Karl Auer - "There is a lesson in this for all of us: When arranging
> contracts,
> ensure that network resources that are the property of or under the
> administrative control of your company (as distinct from under the
> operational control of your company) are specifically excluded from
> any
> actions the other party is permitted to take in case of dispute."
> 
> 
> I'd have to agree with you on this. Contracts should be read... Is
> this not why we have those wonderful people who are called lawyers,
> who enjoy there exorbitant fees.
> 


The only thing I agree with here, however as someone else said today,
whats written in a contract, does not make it above the law
and we all know half the crap that goes into contracts are legally
unenforceable scare tactics.


> In closing, leave your dirty laundry out of AusNOG. Why bring the
> content within these mailing list to such a level that I would expect
> from juviniles.
> 
> 


Because it could be an eye opener to anyone researching considering
doing business with AINS as the lowly scum tactics tehy are likely to
enact. It also might be an eye opener to anyone wishing to work for them
as to the sort of immoral and likely illegal acts they might be forced
to conduct, when push comes to then shove, the person who engages the
rules can be held just as liable\ as the idiot who directed them to
apply it.


> -C4 ( just my 2c )
> 


your 2c is only worth something if you are not anonymous, at the moment
you owe me 4 minutes of my time, on a Sunday night, that could cost you
a bottle of JD black label :)




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20101212/047bc8e5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20101212/047bc8e5/attachment.sig>