Proposal 135839 Review | Lorimer - CO.DELTA △
VOTE: YES 
TLDR: Removes a node belonging to the ‘George Bassadone’ NP, because he already has control over another node in this subnet (63rak, under his GeoNodes LLC NP)
Ideally in future proposals the reason will be placed in the ‘Motivation’ section (currently blank in this proposal summary). However the reason is given by the business rules statement →
Business rules check results before the membership change:
Node provider cluster 1 (6sq7t, vegae, eatbv) has 2 nodes in the subnet
Context for this can be found in this thread, which received lots of discussion (particularly after @borovan started shaking the community into action). I don’t think there’s any need for a motion proposal to start separating known clusters (there’s no reason not to).
Decentralisation Stats
Subnet node distance stats (distance between any 2 nodes in the subnet) →
| Smallest Distance | Average Distance | Largest Distance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 452.505 km | 8883.905 km | 18499.629 km |
| PROPOSED | 452.505 km | 8850.634 km (-0.4%) | 18499.629 km |
This proposal slightly reduces decentralisation, considered purely in terms of geographic distance (and therefore there’s a slight theoretical reduction in localised disaster resilience). 
Subnet characteristic counts →
| Continents | Countries | Data Centers | Owners | Node Providers | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 5 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
| PROPOSED | 5 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 13 |
Largest number of nodes with the same characteristic (e.g. continent, country, data center, etc.) →
| Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXISTING | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| PROPOSED | 5 (+25%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
See here for acceptable limits → Motion 135700
The above subnet information is illustrated below, followed by a node reference table:
Map Description
- Red marker represents a removed node (transparent center for overlap visibility)
- Green marker represents an added node
- Blue marker represents an unchanged node
- Highlighted patches represent the country the above nodes sit within (red if the country is removed, green if added, otherwise grey)
- Light grey markers with yellow borders are examples of unassigned nodes that would be viable candidates for joining the subnet according to formal decentralisation coefficients (so this proposal can be viewed in the context of alternative solutions that are not being used)
Node Changes
| Action | Node | Status | Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remove |  |
||||||||
| Add | lkq7d | UNASSIGNED | |
Europe | Slovenia | Maribor (mb1) | Posita.si | Fractal Labs AG | 3xiew |
Other Nodes
| Node | Status | Continent | Country | Data Center | Owner | Node Provider | Node Operator | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| d6thv | UP | |
Oceania | Australia | Melbourne 2 (mn2) | NEXTDC | Icaria Systems Pty Ltd | l5lhp |
| yim23 | UP | |
North America | Canada | Quebec l1 (mtl1) | Leaseweb | Rivram Inc | zhlzs |
| udlch | UP | |
Europe | Switzerland | Zurich 6 (zh6) | Green.ch | Sygnum Bank | ciprs |
| 63rak | UP | |
North America | Costa Rica | San José 1 (cr1) | Navegalo | GeoNodes LLC | eqv2i |
| tmevu | UP | |
Asia | India | Panvel 2 (pl2) | Yotta | Krishna Enterprises | 7rw6b |
| 7s6kl | UP | |
Asia | Japan | Tokyo (ty1) | Equinix | Starbase | cqjev |
| vivoi | UP | |
Europe | Latvia | Riga 1 (rg1) | DEAC | MB Patrankos šūvis | jptla |
| ihb24 | UP | |
Europe | Romania | Bucharest (bu1) | M247 | Iancu Aurel | c5ssg |
| 7pwmx | UP | |
Europe | Sweden | Stockholm 1 (sh1) | Digital Realty | DFINITY Stiftung | lgp6d |
| xu6mr | UP | |
Asia | Singapore | Singapore (sg1) | Telin | OneSixtyTwo Digital Capital | d4bin |
| fe7vt | UP | |
North America | United States of America (the) | Phoenix (ph1) | CyrusOne | MI Servers | 5bnm2 |
| jk3km | UP | |
Africa | South Africa | Cape Town 2 (ct2) | Teraco | Kontrapunt (Pty) Ltd | x7fjr |
You may wish to follow the CO.DELTA known neuron (coming soon) if you found this analysis helpful.
CO.DELTA △
We’re a verifiably decentralised collective who review IC deltas (changes applied by NNS proposals). We follow a common code:
- Look: We observe the details and context of NNS proposals
- Test: We test and verify the claims made by those proposals
- Automate: We automate as much as possible by building increasingly sophisticated tools that streamline and strengthen the reviewal process.
Every vote cast by CO.DELTA is the result of consensus among diligent, skilled and experienced team members acting independently. The CO.DELTA neuron follows the vote of D-QUORUM on NNS topics that the CO.DELTA team does not handle directly. You can therefore follow CO.DELTA on all topics and rely on the highest quality of vote.
Note that this analysis involved data provided by the IC-API, which is not open source. I’m in the process of switching over to more verifiable sources of this sort of information for future proposal reviews. See here for related discussion.