<div dir="ltr"><br><div><br></div><div>As you, I think that more people should have a right to vote and I agree there are more stakeholders than just orgs with a registry. But providing a framework to avoid gaming the process I think is difficult (and possibly impossible). The alternative that is what we have now I think is not perfect but a good compromise at least for this first election.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div>as</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 at 15:00 Christian Koch <<a href="mailto:ck@megaport.com">ck@megaport.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>but thats exaggeration, arturo</div><div><br></div><div>who cares if amazon has 1 vote and twitch does, really? </div><div><br></div><div>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</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>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</div></div><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 20 November 2015 at 17:53, Arturo Servin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:arturo.servin@gmail.com" target="_blank">arturo.servin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><br></div>I would say that having hundreds of votes from tens of orgs holding more than one vote would be the real circus.<div><br></div><div>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.</div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>-as</div></font></span><div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 at 14:47 Christian Koch <<a href="mailto:ck@megaport.com" target="_blank">ck@megaport.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">thats the problem, judging by the number of registered voters, most people dont care. <div><br></div><div>just sayin...</div><div><br></div><div>if i had a asn and peered, id pull my data out of peeringdb after seeing this circus</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 20 November 2015 at 17:40, Chris Caputo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:secretary@peeringdb.com" target="_blank">secretary@peeringdb.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Christian Koch wrote:<br>
</span><span>> i have already mentioned it, chris.<br>
> Google, which has multiple ASN's registered in peeringdb, should obviously not get more than 1 vote<br>
><br>
> But what about Google and Google Fiber? <br>
><br>
> Their parent company is Alphabet. Do they get 2 votes?<br>
<br>
</span>No, they got one vote. And they didn't appear to object to the notion.<br>
<span><br>
> Edgecast and Verizon should also get a vote each, if they cared.<br>
<br>
</span>If Verizon owns more than 50% of Edgecast or has the power to<br>
independently control it, 1 vote.<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
Chris<br>
</font></span><div><div><br>
> 64 registered voters out of how many potential? i dont know if id call that a success<br>
><br>
> too many people have their heads up their asses and this should have never gone down this path to begin with, quite frankly<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 20 November 2015 at 17:26, Chris Caputo <<a href="mailto:secretary@peeringdb.com" target="_blank">secretary@peeringdb.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> You've said that but you haven't explained why it is broken.<br>
><br>
> As Will has pointed out, if you remove the affiliate clause you make it<br>
> possible to game the elections.<br>
><br>
> As an aside, if Amazon had said they want the vote, I would have informed<br>
> Twitch that Amazon will be voting instead of Twitch, on the basis of<br>
> Amazon being the controlling organization.<br>
><br>
> I think the election and rules are working well and as intended. 55 of 64<br>
> registered voters have voted. With 10 days left the number of registered<br>
> voters will likely go up. I think the goal of a fair and representative<br>
> election is happening.<br>
><br>
> Chris<br>
><br>
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Christian Koch wrote:<br>
> > this is so broken. its unfortunate. <br>
> > hopefully the newly elected board will perform surgery and fix this<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On 20 November 2015 at 17:06, <<a href="mailto:secretary@peeringdb.com" target="_blank">secretary@peeringdb.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > Under the current election and rules, Twitch and Amazon are not able to<br>
> > both vote.<br>
> ><br>
> > When Twitch opted to vote, I informed Amazon and secured permission from<br>
> > Amazon that Twitch would be doing their vote.<br>
> ><br>
> > Chris<br>
> ><br>
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, C N wrote:<br>
> > > Not trying to derail the 'Twitch' vote but Twitch is an Amazon<br>
> > > Subsidiary yet we run our own network. Based on what I have read from<br>
> > > some here, that would disqualify either the 'Twitch AS' or 'Amazon AS'<br>
> > > since only one could vote. If that were the case, who chooses who gets<br>
> > > to vote?<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Christian<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > <br>
> > ><br>
> > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Christian Koch <<a href="mailto:ck@megaport.com" target="_blank">ck@megaport.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > if thats the policy, then peeringdb should be modified for organizations with multiple ASN's so there<br>
> can<br>
> > primary and<br>
> > > sub ASN's<br>
> > > just because there is a parent company, does not mean policy is controlled by a single person or<br>
> group<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > On 20 November 2015 at 15:03, Chris Caputo <<a href="mailto:ccaputo@alt.net" target="_blank">ccaputo@alt.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > In the current draft, networks are not members. Business entities are.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Some businesses have multiple networks / multiple ASNs. I hope we can<br>
> > > agree they should only have one vote.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Do you really want to give conglomerates multiple votes while<br>
> > > non-conglomerates have a single vote?<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Chris<br>
> > ><br>
> > > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Christian Koch wrote:<br>
> > > > going to have to agree here.<br>
> > > > this is a silly rule, with no way to validate the independence of the network policy. <br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > On 19 November 2015 at 13:27, Pierfrancesco Caci <<a href="mailto:pf@caci.it" target="_blank">pf@caci.it</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > > >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Caputo <<a href="mailto:ccaputo@alt.net" target="_blank">ccaputo@alt.net</a>> writes:<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Chris> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:<br>
> > > > >> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Caputo <<a href="mailto:secretary@peeringdb.com" target="_blank">secretary@peeringdb.com</a>> writes:<br>
> > > > Chris> - 2 organizations have been disallowed from voting due to<br>
> > > > Chris> coming under the purview of the draft bylaws affiliate<br>
> > > > Chris> clause (*). 1 was disallowed because of a parent<br>
> > > > Chris> organization affiliation, and 1 was disallowed because<br>
> > > > Chris> of a common control affiliation.<br>
> > > > >><br>
> > > > >> After this election is over, I suggest that we talk about when a<br>
> > > > >> controlled organization is independent enough to get their own vote<br>
> > > > >> besides that of the parent. One of the 2 orgs that have been disallowed<br>
> > > > >> could well have voted independently of mine, in my opinion.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Chris> Allowing organizations under common control to have multiple votes,<br>
> > > > Chris> depending on the level of independence reported by the organizations<br>
> > > > Chris> themselves, would seem to be a challenging equation to balance.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Chris> If A is a parent of B and C, and B and C are able to vote,<br>
> > > > Chris> then A wields<br>
> > > > Chris> twice the influence of other voters.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Chris> I don't see how that can be negated.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > I'm not sure which cases we're trying to prevent here. B and C run<br>
> > > > different networks with different peering policies and requirements.<br>
> > > > I understand that you have no possibility to check the level of<br>
> > > > independence. Anyway, let's have this vote come to conclusion, and maybe<br>
> > > > in the meantime I or someone else comes up with a better idea.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Pf<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > --<br>
> > > > Pierfrancesco Caci<br>
> > ><br>
> > > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> > > <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com" target="_blank">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> > > <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> > > <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com" target="_blank">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> > > <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com" target="_blank">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> > <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com" target="_blank">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com" target="_blank">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div>