[PDB-announce] [PDB-gov] PeeringDB survey with regard to the future of PeeringDB
Chris Malayter
mustang at peeringdb.com
Fri Aug 7 20:42:07 PDT 2015
Arnold,
IX-F is only a point of data, it’s not the authoritative source for all IXPs.
-Chris
> On Aug 7, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Arnold Nipper <arnold.nipper at de-cix.net> wrote:
>
> On 07.08.2015 02:28, Daniel Golding wrote:
>> See inline...
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Chris Caputo <ccaputo at alt.net
>> <mailto:ccaputo at alt.net>> wrote:
>>
>> I think everyone involved is trying to work from a place of logic and
>> transparency.
>>
>> Some things to ponder...
>>
>> Who are the PeeringDB stakeholders?
>>
>> - admins?
>> - individual users?
>> - organizational users? (networks? IXes? datacenters?)
>> - donors?
>> - ???
>>
>>
>> I suspect networks, IXs, datacenters are the primary stakeholders and
>> will likely be the largest donors.
>>
>
> Theoretically IX information is not longer part of PeeringDB because
> meanwhile IX-F DB is _the_ authoratative source for IX information.
> PeeringDB only refers to IX-F DB.
>
> Nevertheless IXs as well as IXPAs as well as IX-F probably have a vital
> interest that PeeringDB works properly.
>
>
> Best
> Arnold
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Who should be the Members (the group that elects the Board) of
>> PeeringDB?
>>
>> - admins?
>> - individual users?
>> - organizational users? (networks? IXes? datacenters?)
>> - donors?
>> - ???
>>
>>
>> This is tough and there needs to be input from the community. Does
>> membership tie into financing? Are people willing to pay another
>> membership fee? Is there a huge risk by just requiring people to sign up
>> and not pay anything?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How is Membership determined?
>>
>> - free?
>> - fee?
>> - service?
>> - qualifications?
>> - ???
>>
>>
>> "Service guarantees citizenship. Would you like to know more?" /s
>>
>>
>>
>> If part of another organization, how would the interests of the
>> stakeholders be maintained?
>>
>>
>> Either the stakeholders would have to be confident in the organization
>> or there would have to be a mechanism to ensure that its constituency
>> has a strong voice. I think different organizations have managed to pull
>> this off.
>>
>>
>>
>> Would donors who have a problem with or are not a member of a parent
>> organization be dissuaded from donating to a sub-account devoted to
>> PeeringDB?
>>
>>
>> Earmarking funds is a common mechanism. Of course, picking a parent
>> organization that is not particularly controversial would be important.
>>
>>
>> How would a parent organization deal with and absorb the potential
>> liability that comes from operating PeeringDB? An example of that
>> liability being when a spammer harvests from the PeeringDB database and
>> gets shut out, they could sue the organization. Or even if they
>> don't sue,
>> will they withdraw support from the parent organization or cause
>> problems.
>> How will that impact future decision making in the interests of
>> PeeringDB
>> versus the parent organization?
>>
>>
>> This is actually the benefit of being part of a larger organization. Its
>> trivial to sue a PeeringDB-Inc with minimal assets - almost anyone could
>> do it and you would just need to outspend PeeringDB-Inc. The reason why
>> other organizations like ARIN have large warchests is to forestall this
>> - those large pockets might look attractive, but they hire lawyers.
>> Professional staff is also important - a lawsuit against volunteers is
>> pretty easy, but when you have dedicated staff its easier to defend
>> yourself.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The answers to the above are challenging. It is thought by some
>> stakeholders that organizing into an independent organization is a clear
>> solution, and that there are enough financial supporters out there who
>> have expressed support and agree, to make it worthwhile. Obviously,
>> there
>> are others who disagree.
>>
>>
>> Is there a list of those who have pledged support with amounts? If the
>> commits are "hard" and the list is long and trustworthy, then you will
>> have answered one of the important questions without any real debate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Re Membership questions posed above: At present there is no good answer.
>> There's a desire to avoid membership fees. There's a desire for
>> representation of both users and admins. The thought by folks working on
>> independent organization effort, so far, was to have an initial
>> membership
>> consisting of the initial Board of Directors. The idea being that these
>> individuals (*) are trusted enough by the PeeringDB community to steward
>> PeeringDB from its present state to one of being legally organized
>> and on
>> a path toward tax-exempt status. The initial Board can then revise the
>> Bylaws to be more inclusive.
>>
>>
>> Why avoid membership fees? A _nominal_ fee can be a very handy tool
>> against trolls infiltrating the organization.
>>
>>
>>
>> It could be this should be re-examined in the interest of transparency,
>> legitimacy, and securing a mandate. Maybe PeeringDB voting Membership
>> could be defined simply as those subscribed to the pdb-gov
>> (http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov)
>> mailing list
>> with active PeeringDB accounts. From there, drafts of Articles & Bylaws
>> can be evolved, along with nominations of initial Board members to be
>> listed on the Articles. I think all of the proposed Board members are
>> happy to step aside in favor of those who receive greater support
>> from the
>> community, myself included.
>>
>> But the first question is, do we organize independently? Hence the
>> survey.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> *: Aaron Hughes, Matt Griswold, Patrick W. Gilmore, Richard A
>> Steenbergen,
>> and myself.
>>
>> Disclosure: In 2014, Patrick retained me to help get PeeringDB organized
>> into a non-profit U.S. IRS 501(c)(6) due to my experience with the SIX
>> (Seattle IX). He asked me to do so by being a Board Member and
>> Secretary/Treasurer of the proposed organization. Not expecting this
>> process to take so long or be divisive, I put those positions on my
>> Facebook and LinkedIn profiles. I hope doing so did not cause additional
>> confusion or appearance of presumption. They have now been removed.
>>
>> On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Daniel Golding wrote:
>>> Peering DB Community,
>>>
>>> Just to provide some additional color from one of those who
>> believes more
>>> transparency and logic should be applied to the situation....
>>>
>>> A number of us in the community are skeptical of the need for yet
>> another
>>> organization with resulting overhead (which is significant). In
>> addition,
>>> there is concern regarding the initial makeup of any proposed
>> PeeringDB
>>> board - namely, that it may not be representative of the largest user
>>> groups and potential contributors to PeeringDB. There is concern
>> about the
>>> degree of transparency to this point - that most decisions are
>> being made
>>> on a closed "admin-only" list.
>>>
>>> PeeringDB will be funded, theoretically, by contributions or
>> memberships.
>>> For this reason, its vital that the Board be representative of the
>>> potential contributor base, as well as absolutely free of potential
>>> conflicts of interest.
>>>
>>> Of course, one way to avoid these unpleasant issues is to
>> associate with
>>> another, better funded organization, to operate in a semi-autonomous
>>> manner.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel Golding
>>>
>>> Disclosures: I work for Google and we have a vested interest in
>> the success
>>> of PeeringDB. I am Chair of NANOG, and NANOG is one of the choices
>> on the
>>> Survey, but I'd be just as happy to see this activity under OpenIX
>> or the
>>> Internet Society.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Aaron Hughes <aaronh at tcp0.com
>> <mailto:aaronh at tcp0.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fellow PeeringDB Community,
>>>>
>>>> It has come to our attention that several community members
>> believe more
>>>> transparency and logic could have been applied to the initial survey
>>>> regarding where PeeringDB functions should live. We respectfully
>> request a
>>>> poll from the community with a more formal survey in order to
>> keep with the
>>>> spirit of PeeringDB transparency and bottom up.
>>>>
>>>> PeeringDB has been operating for years with no official
>> corporate umbrella
>>>> or liability protection. There has been much discussion in
>> recent months
>>>> about officially organizing into an IRS non-profit, so that
>> users may
>>>> contribute funding and be assured that their contributions will
>> best serve
>>>> PeeringDB's evolution.
>>>>
>>>> Please review and complete the following survey:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ZDM6RNK
>>>>
>>>> This survey will close on 15, Aug 2015 2359h UTC
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> PeeringDB Admins
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Aaron Hughes
>>>> aaronh at tcp0.com <mailto:aaronh at tcp0.com>
>>>> +1-703-244-0427 <tel:%2B1-703-244-0427>
>>>> PGP Public Key ID: 0xF6B1DEC2
>>>> Key fingerprint = 6486 43A5 1692 502C DCFC 8446 C714 E317 F6B1 DEC2
>>>> http://www.tcp0.com/
>>>>
>>>> Request a meeting with me: https://doodle.com/aaronh
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pdb-announce mailing list
>>>> Pdb-announce at lists.peeringdb.com
>> <mailto:Pdb-announce at lists.peeringdb.com>
>>>> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-announce
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dan Golding | Data Center Strategy | Global Network Acquisition |
>>> dgolding at google.com <mailto:dgolding at google.com> | +1
>> 202-370-5916 <tel:%2B1%20202-370-5916>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dan Golding | Infrastructure Engineering and Strategy |
>> dgolding at google.com <mailto:dgolding at google.com> | +1 202-370-5916
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pdb-announce mailing list
>> Pdb-announce at lists.peeringdb.com
>> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-announce
>>
>
>
> --
> Arnold Nipper
> CTO/COO and Co-Founder
>
> DE-CIX Management GmbH | Lindleystrasse 12 | 60314 Frankfurt am Main |
> Germany | www.de-cix.net | Phone +49 69 1730902 22 |
> Mobile +49 172 2650958 | Fax +49 69 4056 2716 |
> arnold.nipper at de-cix.net | Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa |
> Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-announce mailing list
> Pdb-announce at lists.peeringdb.com
> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-announce
More information about the Pdb-announce
mailing list