[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

Christian Koch ck at megaport.com
Fri Nov 20 14:59:57 PST 2015


but thats exaggeration, arturo

who cares if amazon has 1 vote and twitch does, really?

independent networks, independent management, independent goals,
independent tools, independent opinions - and they dont have to agree with
each other, and therefore they should be considered individual orgs, and
each get their own vote


i think most people do not care or just dont want to speak up. because
peeringdb made a bad decision to want to become an independent org



On 20 November 2015 at 17:53, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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/20151120/293dc0e7/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Pdb-gov mailing list