[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility
Arturo Servin
arturo.servin at gmail.com
Fri Nov 20 15:15:29 PST 2015
As you, I think that more people should have a right to vote and I agree
there are more stakeholders than just orgs with a registry. But providing a
framework to avoid gaming the process I think is difficult (and possibly
impossible). The alternative that is what we have now I think is not
perfect but a good compromise at least for this first election.
Regards
as
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 at 15:00 Christian Koch <ck at megaport.com> wrote:
> but thats exaggeration, arturo
>
> who cares if amazon has 1 vote and twitch does, really?
>
> independent networks, independent management, independent goals,
> independent tools, independent opinions - and they dont have to agree with
> each other, and therefore they should be considered individual orgs, and
> each get their own vote
>
>
> i think most people do not care or just dont want to speak up. because
> peeringdb made a bad decision to want to become an independent org
>
>
>
> On 20 November 2015 at 17:53, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I would say that having hundreds of votes from tens of orgs holding more
>> than one vote would be the real circus.
>>
>> And not complaining to have a single vote does not mean that orgs do not
>> care, it probably means that they agree with the process.
>>
>> -as
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 at 14:47 Christian Koch <ck at megaport.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20151120/0f00b298/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Pdb-gov
mailing list