Internet Exchange Capacity Governance Adviser

The mandate

The supervisory board repeatedly debates how much fabric and route-server resilience to fund when a small number of large members drive peaks but the exchange’s neutrality requires predictable service for all. Engineering seeks earlier capacity release, finance wants contracted triggers, and members disagree about whether advanced services create shared resilience or subsidise specific traffic strategies. The standing question is how to invest fairly before headroom becomes an outage.

The adviser will contribute two working days a month, lead a monthly governance challenge with engineering and member relations, attend four member-infrastructure council meetings and visit four exchange or member sites. A material resilience event receives an initial response within twenty-four hours; normal papers receive comments within five business days. All preparation and stated attendance are included.

The appointment lasts twelve months and closes after the annual capacity and resilience plan. At month eleven the supervisory chair may propose a new scope if a cross-border exchange consolidation advances, but the full board must approve it after member consultation; no automatic renewal or carry-forward applies. Unused days expire with the current term.

The adviser holds no line authority and carries no executive, network-operating, member-contracting, procurement or policy responsibility. Management runs the fabric, the council represents members, and the board approves capital and rules. The adviser may challenge thresholds, evidence and fairness, but cannot direct route changes, allocate ports, favour a participant or speak publicly for the exchange.

Up to three unrelated positions may continue. A role with a member network, competing exchange, switch or optics supplier, colocation operator, route-server vendor, transit provider or infrastructure investor creates a potential conflict requiring disclosure and may require recusal. Fees tied to equipment sale, member migration, traffic volume or consolidation outcome are incompatible with this independent role.

Why the board wants this voice

The board has member and financial perspectives but lacks a neutral operator who has governed shared interconnection infrastructure through asymmetric growth and failure. Engineering metrics do not by themselves resolve who benefits, who pays or which dependencies threaten the exchange’s common purpose. The chair wants external judgment that can join packet-level resilience with cooperative governance.

What you will own

• Press management to distinguish port utilisation, fabric contention, failure headroom, control-plane load and site diversity in capital triggers.
• Test resilience claims against switch failure, route-server loss, optical impairment, member leak, facility isolation and extreme traffic redistribution.
• Challenge route-server dependence, filtering, graceful-shutdown, maintenance and fallback policies using observable member consequence.
• Examine cost allocation across membership classes, burst contributors, advanced services, resilience beneficiaries and strategic reserve.
• Shape investment gates for chassis, optics, sites, route servers, monitoring and staffing with transparent lead-time and uncertainty margins.
• Probe supplier and facility concentration alongside inventory, sparing, operational access, software support and exit capability.
• Frame the annual board view on capacity, fairness, member obligations, unresolved concentration and decisions requiring consultation.

Candidate qualifications

• Governed or operated a material internet exchange, carrier peering platform or similarly neutral shared network fabric.
• Set capacity and failure-headroom thresholds using traffic dynamics, hardware lead time and credible multi-failure scenarios.
• Managed route-server policy and member incidents without allowing one participant’s commercial power to override neutral rules.
• Built cost-allocation or investment frameworks for infrastructure used asymmetrically by members with equal governance standing.
• Challenged facility, switch, optics or software concentration through tested operational alternatives and supplier evidence.
• Advised a cooperative or member-led board while disclosing relationships across the ecosystem and preserving procedural fairness.

Non-negotiables

• Can attend all four Brussels council meetings and complete the four exchange or member visits within twelve months.
• Will disclose roles, investments and commercial ties involving members, exchanges, suppliers, facilities, transit and network investors.
• Accepts that management and member governance retain all operational, capital, contractual and public-policy authority.
• Brings live interconnection-fabric experience; enterprise network planning or telecom policy alone is insufficient.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe one exchange capacity metric that concealed risk during a large member’s traffic shift.
2. 49 words maximum. Which current member, exchange, facility or supplier relationship could require your recusal?
3. 49 words maximum. Confirm the Brussels cadence and explain one fair trigger for funding resilience used unequally by members.