[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility
Christian Koch
ck at megaport.com
Fri Nov 20 14:47:31 PST 2015
thats the problem, judging by the number of registered voters, most people
dont care.
just sayin...
if i had a asn and peered, id pull my data out of peeringdb after seeing
this circus
On 20 November 2015 at 17:40, Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com> wrote:
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-gov/attachments/20151120/0e7b6480/attachment.html>
More information about the Pdb-gov
mailing list