[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

[Christian Koch]

this is a prime example of why the policy is bad

Twitch and Amazon should have a vote each



On 20 November 2015 at 15:45, C N <nielsenc at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not trying to derail the 'Twitch' vote but Twitch is an Amazon Subsidiary
> yet we run our own network. Based on what I have read from some here, that
> would disqualify either the 'Twitch AS' or 'Amazon AS' since only one could
> vote. If that were the case, who chooses who gets to vote?
>
> Christian
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Christian Koch <ck at megaport.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20151120/01e85bf1/attachment.html>