<div dir="ltr">this is so broken. its unfortunate. <div><br></div><div>hopefully the newly elected board will perform surgery and fix this<br><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 20 November 2015 at 17:06, <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">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>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Chris<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><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">ck@megaport.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> if thats the policy, then peeringdb should be modified for organizations with multiple ASN's so there can 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 group<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 20 November 2015 at 15:03, Chris Caputo <<a href="mailto:ccaputo@alt.net">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">pf@caci.it</a>> wrote:<br>
> > >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Caputo <<a href="mailto:ccaputo@alt.net">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">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">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">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><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">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></blockquote></div><br></div>