[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

[Will Hargrave]

These are two distinct points here.


1. Who is a ‘member’ / ‘stakeholder’ of the organisation?

A network is a unique number and possibly a stack of equipment. It has no legal personality so cannot own or vote any more than a roundel of cheese can. We could decide to allow a member to have as many weighted votes as it has networks, but I suggest that would be daft. 


2. The affiliate clause.

We looked at other organisations - RIRs and IXs - and we decided in this very mailing list to include this clause to protect the organisation from capture. See the discussion around the 21st of October including my own posts. I did some work looking at e.g. RIPE NCC, LINX, AMS-IX, Nominet, LONAP documents. Some of those orgs have struggled with the concerns of capture in the past. 

If I desired to capture the org I could trivially spin up 40 UK LTDs for <$1000 and equip them with LIRs and Peeringdb acccounts. Getting the AS and Pdb accounts would take the longest time of all those things. 


I agree with Arturo, Nat, et al — Hold firm. We decided this for all of the right reasons, and I’m afraid the fact that it may impact lovely people like PF and the Twitch and Amazon folks rather than anyone with obvious bad intentions changes nothing.


Will


> On 20 Nov 2015, at 22:51, Dave Temkin <dave at temk.in> wrote:
> 
> Except in the model which we've proposed (one org, one vote), if an org has multiple legal entities that have distinct networks, they get separate votes.
> 
> This is again how it works with IXes and LIRs. Why are we trying to re-invent the wheel?
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Amazon AS people and Twich AS people have a very civilized discussion (I would recommend to add some beer) to decide which person should vote and perhaps for whom to vote.
> 
> .as
> 
> 
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 at 12:45 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov