[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

Chris Caputo secretary at peeringdb.com
Fri Nov 20 14:40:00 PST 2015


On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Christian Koch wrote:
> i have already mentioned it, chris.
> Google, which has multiple ASN's registered in peeringdb, should obviously not get more than 1 vote
> 
> But what about Google and Google Fiber? 
> 
> Their parent company is Alphabet. Do they get 2 votes?

No, they got one vote.  And they didn't appear to object to the notion.

> Edgecast and Verizon should also get a vote each, if they cared.

If Verizon owns more than 50% of Edgecast or has the power to 
independently control it, 1 vote.

Chris

> 64 registered voters out of how many potential? i dont know if id call that a success
> 
> too many people have their heads up their asses and this should have never gone down this path to begin with, quite frankly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 20 November 2015 at 17:26, 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.
> 
>       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
> 
> 
> 
> 


More information about the Pdb-gov mailing list