[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

[Christian Koch]

if thats the policy, then peeringdb should be modified for organizations
with multiple ASN's so there can primary and sub ASN's

just because there is a parent company, does not mean policy is controlled
by a single person or group




On 20 November 2015 at 15:03, Chris Caputo <ccaputo at alt.net> wrote:

> In the current draft, networks are not members.  Business entities are.
>
> Some businesses have multiple networks / multiple ASNs.  I hope we can
> agree they should only have one vote.
>
> Do you really want to give conglomerates multiple votes while
> non-conglomerates have a single vote?
>
> Chris
>
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Christian Koch wrote:
> > going to have to agree here.
> > this is a silly rule, with no way to validate the independence of the
> network policy.
> >
> >
> > On 19 November 2015 at 13:27, Pierfrancesco Caci <pf at caci.it> wrote:
> >       >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Caputo <ccaputo at alt.net> writes:
> >
> >
> >           Chris> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:
> >           >> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com>
> writes:
> >           Chris> - 2 organizations have been disallowed from voting due
> to
> >           Chris> coming under the purview of the draft bylaws affiliate
> >           Chris> clause (*).  1 was disallowed because of a parent
> >           Chris> organization affiliation, and 1 was disallowed because
> >           Chris> of a common control affiliation.
> >           >>
> >           >> After this election is over, I suggest that we talk about
> when a
> >           >> controlled organization is independent enough to get their
> own vote
> >           >> besides that of the parent. One of the 2 orgs that have
> been disallowed
> >           >> could well have voted independently of mine, in my opinion.
> >
> >           Chris> Allowing organizations under common control to have
> multiple votes,
> >           Chris> depending on the level of independence reported by the
> organizations
> >           Chris> themselves, would seem to be a challenging equation to
> balance.
> >
> >           Chris> If A is a parent of B and C, and B and C are able to
> vote,
> >           Chris> then A wields
> >           Chris> twice the influence of other voters.
> >
> >           Chris> I don't see how that can be negated.
> >
> >       I'm not sure which cases we're trying to prevent here. B and C run
> >       different networks with different peering policies and
> requirements.
> >       I understand that you have no possibility to check the level of
> >       independence. Anyway, let's have this vote come to conclusion, and
> maybe
> >       in the meantime I or someone else comes up with a better idea.
> >
> >       Pf
> >
> >       --
> >       Pierfrancesco Caci
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-gov/attachments/20151120/c3aeb3c9/attachment.html>