[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