[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility
Jake Chin
jakechin at gmail.com
Fri Nov 20 15:59:43 PST 2015
I wanted to clarify that Google did care that it was one org one vote. We
discussed internally to agree that Google will represent all of Google and
Google Fiber in the vote.
We did not object because we felt that if we agree to participate in this
process, we are going to try and move forward with the people who have
volunteered to make this happen. It wasn't because we did not care. I think
many orgs who have registered and/or have voted do care.
Jake on behalf of Google
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:47 PM, 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/20151120/8d3fc97d/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Pdb-gov
mailing list