<div dir="ltr">i have already mentioned it, chris.<div><br></div><div>Google, which has multiple ASN's registered in peeringdb, should obviously not get more than 1 vote</div><div><br></div><div>But what about Google and Google Fiber? </div><div><br></div><div>Their parent company is Alphabet. Do they get 2 votes?</div><div><div><div><br></div><div>Edgecast and Verizon should also get a vote each, if they cared.</div><div><br></div><div>64 registered voters out of how many potential? i dont know if id call that a success</div><div><br></div><div>too many people have their heads up their asses and this should have never gone down this path to begin with, quite frankly<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 20 November 2015 at 17:26, 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">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>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><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">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">ck@megaport.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > if thats the policy, then peeringdb should be modified for organizations with multiple ASN's so there 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 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>
> ><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>