Remove 32 Node Providers

[wpb]

Hey @borovan are you aware that many of these node providers were onboarded with Participant Management proposals that included their email addresses? Here is a link to a filtered list of proposals on the dashboard (just scroll to the bottom and look for the names). Have you considered emailing any of them to learn more about their past and current involvement with the internet computer as a node provider?

Are you also aware that every one of these node providers have 0 nodes in 0 subnets except for MI Server, who has 39 nodes in 7 subnets and BLP22, who has 14 nodes in 2 subnets? I don’t know why these folks with 0 nodes are still listed on the dashboard as a node provider, but they are not active. After a spot check of a dozen of them, it appears that they are all from the AT1, TP1, SJ1, and FM1 data centers. DFINITY owned the node machines and these folks were operating them under a private agreement made prior to Genesis for 48 months, which ended Nov 30, 2024. We need DFINITY to clarify if it is ok to remove these node providers. It seems likely that they should be removed, but I don’t think this counts as you draining the swamp. It seems more likely that the swamp has already been drained and there is just a little cleanup left.

My big concerns is MI Server and BLP22. Those are definitely active. I’d like to see your evidence that MI Server and BLP22 should be removed. Why are you picking them out when they are so different that all the rest?

@katiep

DFINITY is the one who owns these servers. The NPs for these four DCs (AT1, TP1, SJ1, FM1) were operating them under a private agreement made prior to Genesis for 48 months, which ends Nov 30. These NPs have been completely responsible for running them, (DFINITY has not had any access and does not hold the DC contracts.) Their use of the servers ends Saturday, and we are therefore reassuming possession of the servers that we own.

Thus, these removal proposals are more in the nature of a cleanup than anything else. The servers are getting shut down by the operators and us regardless, according to the terms of our private agreement, but it will be cleaner if the subnets are removed prior.

About CodeGov

CodeGov has a team of developers who review and vote independently on the following proposal topics: IC-OS Version Election, Protocol Canister Management, Subnet Management, Node Admin, and Participant Management. The CodeGov NNS known neuron is configured to follow our reviewers on these technical topics. We also have a group of Followees who vote independently on the Governance and the SNS & Neuron’s Fund topics. We strive to be a credible and reliable Followee option that votes on every proposal and every proposal topic in the NNS. We also support decentralization of SNS projects such as WaterNeuron, KongSwap, and Alice with a known neuron and credible Followees.

Learn more about CodeGov and its mission at codegov.org.