[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility
Owen DeLong
owen at delong.com
Fri Nov 20 15:20:08 PST 2015
The problem here and where things could really become a circus is when you start trying to choose
criteria for determining independence.
For example, Tellme had at least 3 ASNs when I was there… Should they get 3 votes?
If Amazon and Twich get a total of 2, why shouldn’t Tellme AZ and Tellme San Jose and
Tellme Ashburn each get a vote?
What makes those operations less independent than Amazon and Twitch?
How do you write that into the bylaws?
Owen
> On Nov 20, 2015, at 14:59 , 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:pf at caci.it>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Caputo <ccaputo at alt.net <mailto:ccaputo at alt.net>> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris> On Thu, 19 Nov 2015, Pierfrancesco Caci wrote:
> > > > > >> >>>>> "Chris" == Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com <mailto: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 <mailto:Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com>
> > > > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov <http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Pdb-gov mailing list
> > > > Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com <mailto:Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com>
> > > > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov <http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Pdb-gov mailing list
> > > Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com <mailto:Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com>
> > > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov <http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pdb-gov mailing list
> > Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com <mailto:Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com>
> > http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov <http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com <mailto:Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com>
> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov <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/20151120/8937d451/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Pdb-gov
mailing list