[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

[Pierfrancesco Caci]

>>>>> "Will" == Will Hargrave <will at harg.net> writes:


    Will> These are two distinct points here.
    Will> 1. Who is a ‘member’ / ‘stakeholder’ of the organisation?

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


    Will> 2. The affiliate clause.

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

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


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


    Will> Will

    >> 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



This is what James and I ended up doing when Chris told us only one of
us could vote. Minus the beer, because we're not close. 
Yet, this clause seems weird to me. Sorry I missed the lengthy
discussion about it you had already, so I fail to understand the
rationale. I don't understand what the capture problem is, and I've
lived under a rock long enough to have missed such problems at RIPE et al.





-- 
Pierfrancesco Caci