[PDB Gov] Risk of excessive DE-CIX influence on PeeringDB

[Chris Rogers]

Chris, thanks for bringing this up; it's a good catch, and you were right
to surface it.

I agree with what many others have said, either Yolandi or Arnold could
certainly do the job, and I trust them to each act responsibly in such a
role.

Given that pdb:
(a) is a non-profit serving a professional community;
(b) is the defacto authoritative source for critical interconnection data;
(c) operates in a context where differing positions may result in financial
gain or loss for certain parties; and
(d) allows two directors to constitute a majority of a three-director quorum
Therefore, from a governance perspective, I feel it's prudent to add an
anti-capture clause to our governing documents.

It's too late to make such a change before this election. Despite my views
on Yolandi's and Arnold's individual qualifications, I hope that through
either the candidates’ decisions or the election outcome, we avoid a
situation in which multiple directors share the same professional
affiliation.

-Chris

On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 11:58 AM Chris Caputo via Pdb-gov <
pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com> wrote:

> Obviously, I disagree. When I posted my original email there were only 3
> candidates, and the probability of two from DE-CIX being elected was high
> enough to take the personal risk of voicing my concern.
>
> There is no present policy being violated here, that is why I am calling
> on people's better angels. Ultimately this is an organization of people
> who care about its future.
>
> In your previous email you wrote:
> > Until there is formal policy we really should not be advocating like
> > this in my mind, especially from members of the board.
>
> I have seen no members of the PeeringDB board or officers participate in
> this pdb-gov discussion. I am a lay person who was formerly the
> secretary/treasurer from 2015-2024.
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2026, John van Oppen wrote:
> > Chris -
> >
> > It is inappropriate to ask this when it is not currently in the bylaws,
> > why are you pushing this so hard?  Is there a policy being violated
> > here?  If the answer to the policy violation is that there is none we
> > should just move along.
> >
> > John
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pdb-gov <pdb-gov-bounces at lists.peeringdb.com> On Behalf Of Chris
> Caputo via Pdb-gov
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 11:35 AM
> > To: Yolandi Cloete <yolandi at peeringdb.com>; Arnold Nipper <
> arnold at peeringdb.com>
> > Cc: Chris Caputo <ccaputo at alt.net>; pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
> > Subject: Re: [PDB Gov] Risk of excessive DE-CIX influence on PeeringDB
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Apr 2026, Yolandi Cloete wrote:
> > > Alternatively for this round of voting,* if it so happens *that the
> > > two of us are the top two voted candidates, we could hold a second
> > > round of voting in which members vote for only one of us. The second
> > > seat should be awarded to the third‑highest‑voted candidate.
> >
> > Without restarting it completely, the election process conducted by
> PeeringDB can't really be altered while it is underway.
> >
> > That said, if neither you nor Arnold will withdraw from this election,
> one or both of you could make a public commitment that if both elected, one
> of you will not accept the election and thus defer to the next ranked
> choice candidate.
> >
> > Are you Yolandi willing to make that commitment?
> >
> > Is Arnold?
> >
> > Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-gov/attachments/20260414/2b7e7d60/attachment.htm>