This Node Provider is missing their ID documentation.
They have uploaded a hardware order but it is illegible.
@wpb Can you please tag the relevant Node Provider so they can update their information accordingly?
@KrishnaEnterprises I think this is you right?
One method of reaching out to node providers that could be helpful is to search their name here on the forum and then scan all the hits. Sometimes links to their posts can be found in reviews of Node Admin, Participant Management, or Subnet Management proposals that are posted by members of the CodeGov team, the CO.DALTA team, or the Aviate Labs team. Usually those reviews occur shortly after the node provider posts their declaration or onboarding statements, so they often know where to look and will document it in their reviews.
Another method is to look up the node provider in the wiki link below. This will provide a link where you can join a small chat group with each individual node provider and Dfinity. Some node providers are good about checking the matrix channel on a regular basis and some are not.
The final recommendation I can make is to reach out to Katie Peters. She seems to do a great job of keeping track of who is who in the node provider community and may know their username.
By the way, I learned all of this within the last week while trying to help @borovan with his investigation posted here. Our reviewers at CodeGov have known how to perform this research for a while since they review proposals, but I havenât had a need to do the research myself until recently.
I hope this helps. If you think there is an improvement that can be made to how to reach node providers or what quality of information they should submit, then you can certainly start a conversation making a suggestion. I think everyone would like to see improvements in the work process.
Yes, but you seem to know everyone that is an NP and you said yourself that the NP matrix channel isnât something that is checked daily. In interests of efficiency, tagging you is most likely to connect to the relevant person faster.
Also, if you are performing due diligence on proposals, then it would be awesome to see you post your results in the forum thread where all the other reviewers post their results. I would love to see Adamâs vote, and all his followers, be cast according to this kind of research and report. The more reviewers the better.
No, itâs not my job to do your work for you. Iâm happy to teach you if thatâs what you want, but youâll need to do the work yourself.
I am not looking at proposals, I thought there were more than enough people doing that. I am just going through the wiki which is very outdated. Understandable as wikis are very easy to set and forget. We use confluence for Dragginz and its the bane of my life. Frequent code changes and game design tweaks means its outdated within a week of writing any documentation. Anyway, happy to go on to proposals after I am done here!
Out of the 5 node providers that I helped Adam find here, I believe 2 responded via the matrix channel, 2 could be found find via forum name search, and 1 could be found by looking at a CodeGov reviewer post who had provided a link.
Oh yeah, if you find a problem or missing information on the Wiki, then I would recommend tagging @katiep and if/when you find the node provider then tag them too. It would be awesome to make sure this information stays up to date and is all legible.
An additional column that would be awesome for the table on the wiki that would be the node provider forum username. I agree it is too challenging to learn how to reach the the node providers.
I have added the username that matches the node provider to my original post. Sadly there is no way to verify that is the name that is used on the forums is the actual node provider, an extra column for contact details would be great. Not sure who maintains the wiki maybe @katiep ?
I will not be contacting NPs for updated information. They blurred that information for a reason⌠possibly the merchant had them sign a NDA on pricing. That is common practice for special orders.
The documentation was provided to support their proposal which passed. Therefore the community at the time considered it to be sufficient.
If the community feels that updated documentation should be required from all NPs, then this should be part of the discussion that is ongoing, regarding what changes should be made. Such changes will eventually be part of a motion proposal. This is the proper way to require more information from NPs.
Or maybe you and a few insiders thought it was sufficient? Donât we need to know whoâs hosting the Internet Computer? Right now the situation is laughable.
You have NO authority here, Jackie Weaver
but how would a NP be approved if they didnât fulfil the base criteria? I am using this as the basis for the criteria:
If there was no proof the identity existed in the real world, how would an NP be approved? If there are exceptional circumstances these should be documented so they can be utilised for all and the community is aware of these and can use this information to vote accordingly.
It appears that voters at the time felt that it was sufficient. Perhaps they researched online and were satisfied with whatever records they found. We donât require voters to publicly state why they approve a proposal. The DFINITY employee who checked these is no longer with us, but I know that he frequently checked government business records to verify the existance of companies. I was not involved in checking the Gen-2 things at the time that this person onboarded. I was focused on Gen-1 NPs who had done KYC, had done zoom sessions, had been shipped the unique HSM for their data centers and then had to verify them, etc.
I donât have a problem with you tagging them here to ask them, although I do not know how many of them follow the forums regularly and will see the messages.
but it is an exception. Saying âoh that was Svenâ is a bit of a cop out. They have 15 nodes, distributed over 12 subnets and 3 are on critical subnets. I believe the community would like to know more about a Node Provider with such a high percentage of critical nodes.
How this got through in the first place is irrelevant, consider this a performance review.
We can always put it to a vote via the NNS but if you are in contact with them (I did tag the forum id with the same name) maybe they can set the communities minds at rest with a very easy to produce document.
Hi Donna,
I think Raju combined self-declaration and ID in the same document. Please see the second page of the PDF, which is filed under âSelf-declaration and Identity Proofâ on this Wiki page.
Hi Community,
Wish you all very Happy Holi. A festival of colour in India.
I gone through the series of communications regarding the ID documentation and also hardware order.
I have already placed the ID Document as per the requirement with two pages of it. Thanks to @alexu for apprising the community.
For hardware proof for servers which were already ordered, we attached the blurred document which were acceptable proof as per guidelines.
Many Thanks @katiep for understanding and clarifying the NDA on price and other part.
Again wish Happy Holi
