[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility
secretary at peeringdb.com
secretary at peeringdb.com
Fri Nov 20 14:06:13 PST 2015
Under the current election and rules, Twitch and Amazon are not able to
both vote.
When Twitch opted to vote, I informed Amazon and secured permission from
Amazon that Twitch would be doing their vote.
Chris
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, C N 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
>
>
>
>
More information about the Pdb-gov
mailing list