[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

[Hannigan, Martin]

Route servers are not a requirement hence no ASN needed.

Best,

-M<


On Nov 18, 2015, at 5:48 PM, bill manning <azuremesa at gmail.com<mailto:azuremesa at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hum.. so an IIX w/o an ASN has a vested interest in peering?  How does that work?

wrt "interested parties"...

Does this sound much different that stock classes & voting your "A" shares differently than your "B" shares?

/Wm

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com<mailto:owen at delong.com>> wrote:

On Nov 18, 2015, at 14:36 , bill manning <azuremesa at gmail.com<mailto:azuremesa at gmail.com>> wrote:

thought experiment:
an entity has one or more ASNs assigned, either through an RIR or from private ASN space.
Each ASN represents a unique Peering Policy (thats what ASNs do).

Posit one vote per policy or vote per ASN.

In the event that an entity has multiple ASNs/policies, all represented by the same natural person, it would seem prudent to restrict the natural person to a single vote, regardless of the number of ASNs they represent.

Are you suggesting that instead of the natural/legal entity distinction, that a better way would be to have a single vote per registered entity regardless of the number of ASNs/policies registered in peeringDB?

Think that might work.


I think it’s more about not disenfranchising entities that do not have an ASN such as some IXs.

I would also like to see us avoid disenfranchising participating and active individuals who are not
representative of an ORG.

Owen



_______________________________________________
Pdb-gov mailing list
Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com<mailto:Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com>
http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-gov/attachments/20151119/fbd5354d/attachment.html>