<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">I would say that they may well have a vested interest in the usefulness and management of peeringdb even though<div class="">they are not directly peering themselves. Yes.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Why do you find this hard to believe?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">As to stock classes… The difference is that currently, unaffiliated individuals have no path to suffrage.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">While I agree we should not change the rules for this election, I do think it is worth considering in the longer term.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 18, 2015, at 14:48 , bill manning <<a href="mailto:azuremesa@gmail.com" class="">azuremesa@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">Hum.. so an IIX w/o an ASN has a vested interest in peering? How does that work?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">wrt "interested parties"...</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">Does this sound much different that stock classes & voting your "A" shares differently than your "B" shares?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">/Wm</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Owen DeLong <span dir="ltr" class=""><<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" class="">owen@delong.com</a>></span> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word" class=""><span class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 18, 2015, at 14:36 , bill manning <<a href="mailto:azuremesa@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">azuremesa@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">thought experiment:</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">an entity has one or more ASNs assigned, either through an RIR or from private ASN space.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">Each ASN represents a unique Peering Policy (thats what ASNs do).</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">Posit one vote per policy or vote per ASN.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">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?</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large"><br class=""></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">Think that might work.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large"><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><br class=""></div></span><div class="">I think it’s more about not disenfranchising entities that do not have an ASN such as some IXs.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I would also like to see us avoid disenfranchising participating and active individuals who are not</div><div class="">representative of an ORG.</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><br class=""></font></span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>