[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