[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility
C N
nielsenc at gmail.com
Fri Nov 20 14:37:48 PST 2015
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com>
wrote:
> You've said that but you haven't explained why it is broken.
>
> As Will has pointed out, if you remove the affiliate clause you make it
> possible to game the elections.
>
> As an aside, if Amazon had said they want the vote, I would have informed
> Twitch that Amazon will be voting instead of Twitch, on the basis of
> Amazon being the controlling organization.
>
Under what determination would the 'Amazon AS' network get the vote vs
Twitch? I am not trying to be captious but I would think that the Twitch AS
has equal standing as the 'Amazon AS'.
Christian
>
> I think the election and rules are working well and as intended. 55 of 64
> registered voters have voted. With 10 days left the number of registered
> voters will likely go up. I think the goal of a fair and representative
> election is happening.
>
> Chris
>
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Christian Koch wrote:
> > this is so broken. its unfortunate.
> > hopefully the newly elected board will perform surgery and fix this
> >
> >
> > On 20 November 2015 at 17:06, <secretary at peeringdb.com> wrote:
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/daed3416/attachment.html>
More information about the Pdb-gov
mailing list