[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

[bill manning]

So, on one hand there are interested parties ( organizations, individuals,
ix'en, regulators, the press, etc. ) and we have BGP which uses ASNs to
describe a unique (to the ASN) peering policy.   Last I checked, peeringDB
was a repository for peering policy of ASNs.  So as a bear of very little
brain, I would think that those who use peeringDB to record their peering
policies should have the votes.  Whomever controls the ASN should have one
vote ...  But I guess this is too simple.

On Friday, 20 November 2015, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin at gmail.com> wrote:

> It is inconvenient for some, but that does not mean that it is bad.
>
> One vote per ASN also seems to be bad for IXs that do not have one.
>
> Regards
> as
>
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 at 12:47 Christian Koch <ck at megaport.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ck at megaport.com');>> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pf at caci.it');>> wrote:
>>>>> >       >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Caputo <ccaputo at alt.net
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ccaputo at alt.net');>> writes:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >           Chris> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:
>>>>> >           >> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>>>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20151120/5b182f34/attachment-0001.html>