[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility
Arturo Servin
arturo.servin at gmail.com
Fri Nov 20 14:53:22 PST 2015
I would say that having hundreds of votes from tens of orgs holding more
than one vote would be the real circus.
And not complaining to have a single vote does not mean that orgs do not
care, it probably means that they agree with the process.
-as
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 at 14:47 Christian Koch <ck at megaport.com> wrote:
> thats the problem, judging by the number of registered voters, most people
> dont care.
>
> just sayin...
>
> if i had a asn and peered, id pull my data out of peeringdb after seeing
> this circus
>
> On 20 November 2015 at 17:40, Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Christian Koch wrote:
>> > i have already mentioned it, chris.
>> > Google, which has multiple ASN's registered in peeringdb, should
>> obviously not get more than 1 vote
>> >
>> > But what about Google and Google Fiber?
>> >
>> > Their parent company is Alphabet. Do they get 2 votes?
>>
>> No, they got one vote. And they didn't appear to object to the notion.
>>
>> > Edgecast and Verizon should also get a vote each, if they cared.
>>
>> If Verizon owns more than 50% of Edgecast or has the power to
>> independently control it, 1 vote.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> > 64 registered voters out of how many potential? i dont know if id call
>> that a success
>> >
>> > too many people have their heads up their asses and this should have
>> never gone down this path to begin with, quite frankly
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 20 November 2015 at 17:26, Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com>
>> wrote:
>> > You've said that but you haven't explained why it is broken.
>> >
>> > As Will has pointed out, if you remove the affiliate clause you
>> make it
>> > possible to game the elections.
>> >
>> > As an aside, if Amazon had said they want the vote, I would have
>> informed
>> > Twitch that Amazon will be voting instead of Twitch, on the basis
>> of
>> > Amazon being the controlling organization.
>> >
>> > I think the election and rules are working well and as intended.
>> 55 of 64
>> > registered voters have voted. With 10 days left the number of
>> registered
>> > voters will likely go up. I think the goal of a fair and
>> representative
>> > election is happening.
>> >
>> > Chris
>> >
>> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Christian Koch wrote:
>> > > this is so broken. its unfortunate.
>> > > hopefully the newly elected board will perform surgery and fix
>> this
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 20 November 2015 at 17:06, <secretary at peeringdb.com> wrote:
>> > > Under the current election and rules, Twitch and Amazon
>> are not able to
>> > > both vote.
>> > >
>> > > When Twitch opted to vote, I informed Amazon and secured
>> permission from
>> > > Amazon that Twitch would be doing their vote.
>> > >
>> > > Chris
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, C N wrote:
>> > > > Not trying to derail the 'Twitch' vote but Twitch is an
>> Amazon
>> > > > Subsidiary yet we run our own network. Based on what I
>> have read from
>> > > > some here, that would disqualify either the 'Twitch AS'
>> or 'Amazon AS'
>> > > > since only one could vote. If that were the case, who
>> chooses who gets
>> > > > to vote?
>> > > >
>> > > > Christian
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Christian Koch <
>> ck at megaport.com> wrote:
>> > > > if thats the policy, then peeringdb should be
>> modified for organizations with multiple ASN's so there
>> > can
>> > > primary and
>> > > > sub ASN's
>> > > > just because there is a parent company, does not
>> mean policy is controlled by a single person or
>> > group
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On 20 November 2015 at 15:03, Chris Caputo <
>> ccaputo at alt.net> wrote:
>> > > > In the current draft, networks are not members.
>> Business entities are.
>> > > >
>> > > > Some businesses have multiple networks / multiple
>> ASNs. I hope we can
>> > > > agree they should only have one vote.
>> > > >
>> > > > Do you really want to give conglomerates multiple
>> votes while
>> > > > non-conglomerates have a single vote?
>> > > >
>> > > > Chris
>> > > >
>> > > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Christian Koch wrote:
>> > > > > going to have to agree here.
>> > > > > this is a silly rule, with no way to validate
>> the independence of the network policy.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 19 November 2015 at 13:27, Pierfrancesco
>> Caci <pf at caci.it> wrote:
>> > > > > >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Caputo <
>> ccaputo at alt.net> writes:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Chris> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015,
>> Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:
>> > > > > >> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Caputo <
>> secretary at peeringdb.com> writes:
>> > > > > Chris> - 2 organizations have been
>> disallowed from voting due to
>> > > > > Chris> coming under the purview of
>> the draft bylaws affiliate
>> > > > > Chris> clause (*). 1 was disallowed
>> because of a parent
>> > > > > Chris> organization affiliation, and
>> 1 was disallowed because
>> > > > > Chris> of a common control
>> affiliation.
>> > > > > >>
>> > > > > >> After this election is over, I
>> suggest that we talk about when a
>> > > > > >> controlled organization is
>> independent enough to get their own vote
>> > > > > >> besides that of the parent. One of
>> the 2 orgs that have been disallowed
>> > > > > >> could well have voted
>> independently of mine, in my opinion.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Chris> Allowing organizations under
>> common control to have multiple votes,
>> > > > > Chris> depending on the level of
>> independence reported by the organizations
>> > > > > Chris> themselves, would seem to be a
>> challenging equation to balance.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Chris> If A is a parent of B and C,
>> and B and C are able to vote,
>> > > > > Chris> then A wields
>> > > > > Chris> twice the influence of other
>> voters.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Chris> I don't see how that can be
>> negated.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I'm not sure which cases we're trying to
>> prevent here. B and C run
>> > > > > different networks with different peering
>> policies and requirements.
>> > > > > I understand that you have no possibility
>> to check the level of
>> > > > > independence. Anyway, let's have this
>> vote come to conclusion, and maybe
>> > > > > in the meantime I or someone else comes
>> up with a better idea.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Pf
>> > > > >
>> > > > > --
>> > > > > Pierfrancesco Caci
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > Pdb-gov mailing list
>> > > > Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
>> > > >
>> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > Pdb-gov mailing list
>> > > > Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
>> > > >
>> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Pdb-gov mailing list
>> > > Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
>> > > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Pdb-gov mailing list
>> > Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
>> > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-gov/attachments/20151120/96833bed/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Pdb-gov
mailing list