<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:monospace,monospace;font-size:large">I like the goal. Sounds reasonable to me.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Chris Caputo <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:secretary@peeringdb.com" target="_blank">secretary@peeringdb.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Limiting organizations with multiple ASNs (or subsidiaries) to a single<br>
vote was part of the genesis for the affiliate language:<br>
<span class=""><br>
- 2.3.2 Members who are affiliated with each other are entitled to a<br>
total of one vote upon each issue. "Affiliate" means, with respect to<br>
a particular person, any entity that directly or indirectly controls,<br>
is controlled by, or is under common control with such person.<br>
</span> (<a href="https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf</a>)<br>
<br>
I previously asked the lawyer about clarifying the above language. He<br>
responded:<br>
<br>
- ... 'the definition I provided for Affiliate is universally understood<br>
by corporate lawyers. Thus any attempt to clarify that definition<br>
will inevitably muddy the waters legally. Nevertheless, here is my<br>
attempt at another definition: "Affiliate" shall mean any<br>
corporation, partnership, limited liability company, joint venture,<br>
association, trust, or other business organization where either the<br>
Member or the parent of the Member owns at least 50% of the<br>
outstanding voting interest."'<br>
<br>
I think if we had that language, one of the voters I rejected, would have<br>
been able to vote.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> Are you suggesting that instead of the natural/legal entity distinction,<br>
> that a better way would be to have a single vote per registered entity<br>
> regardless of the number of ASNs/policies registered in peeringDB?<br>
<br>
</span>Not sure of how to answer this. I think the goal is a single vote per<br>
natural/legal entity, with at least one active PeeringDB organizational<br>
account.<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
Chris<br>
<br>
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, bill manning wrote:<br>
> thought experiment:<br>
> an entity has one or more ASNs assigned, either through an RIR or from<br>
> private ASN space.<br>
> Each ASN represents a unique Peering Policy (thats what ASNs do).<br>
><br>
> Posit one vote per policy or vote per ASN.<br>
><br>
> In the event that an entity has multiple ASNs/policies, all represented by<br>
> the same natural person, it would seem prudent to restrict the natural<br>
> person to a single vote, regardless of the number of ASNs they represent.<br>
><br>
> Are you suggesting that instead of the natural/legal entity distinction,<br>
> that a better way would be to have a single vote per registered entity<br>
> regardless of the number of ASNs/policies registered in peeringDB?<br>
><br>
> Think that might work.<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Chris Caputo <<a href="mailto:secretary@peeringdb.com">secretary@peeringdb.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > As a point of information: So far we have one voter which does not have an<br>
> > ASN. (an exchange point)<br>
> ><br>
> > Having organizations be the member base and then saying one vote per<br>
> > person, would seem orthogonal.<br>
> ><br>
> > For example, if orgs are the member base, and you limit to one vote per<br>
> > person:<br>
> ><br>
> > - if another personal is in the org, someone else would vote<br>
> ><br>
> > - if no one else in the org is available to vote, the org is<br>
> > disenfranchised. (single person organization, such as a<br>
> > sole-proprietorship, is a legitimate organization)<br>
> ><br>
> > Chris<br>
> ><br>
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, bill manning wrote:<br>
> > > this is for the peeringDB, yes?<br>
> > > if so, it seems the prudent/reasonable tactic would be to have the first<br>
> > > filter be (one ASN, one vote) and the second filter is (one vote per<br>
> > > person) ...<br>
> > > gets rid of the messy (legal v. natural entity) problem.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > /Wm<br>
> > ><br>
> > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Daniel Golding <<a href="mailto:dgolding@google.com">dgolding@google.com</a>><br>
> > > wrote:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > > I'm with Steve here. I don't like that involved individuals don't get a<br>
> > > > voice. But changing the rules in the middle of an election is worse.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Also, to ponder - if the rule is to keep only one person per org to<br>
> > have a<br>
> > > > vote, what's to keep multiples from an org from voting as individuals?<br>
> > > > Also, did we anticipate the case where people get multiple votes<br>
> > because<br>
> > > > they are multiple orgs?<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > After this election, I think we should strong consider one person/one<br>
> > > > vote. Otherwise, its just a mess.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > Dan<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > On Monday, November 16, 2015, Steve Feldman <<br>
> > > > <a href="mailto:steven.feldman@cbsinteractive.com">steven.feldman@cbsinteractive.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > >> After reviewing the bylaws, I agree with this view.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> Sections 2.2 and 2.3 are unambiguously clear that only business<br>
> > entities<br>
> > > >> may be members, and only representatives of members are entitled to<br>
> > cast<br>
> > > >> votes.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> While I think we can agree that this leads to a regrettable effect in<br>
> > > >> this case, it's too late to change the rules for this election.<br>
> > Doing so<br>
> > > >> could easily give the appearance of impropriety.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> The incoming board has the authority and ought to address this and a<br>
> > few<br>
> > > >> other issues I see in the bylaws (especially clarifying the<br>
> > affiliation<br>
> > > >> rules) well in advance of the next election.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> Steve<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 6:11 AM, Dave Temkin <<a href="mailto:dave@temk.in">dave@temk.in</a>> wrote:<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Matt Griswold <<a href="mailto:grizz@20c.com">grizz@20c.com</a>><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>>> * Chris Phillips <<a href="mailto:cphillips@aptient.com">cphillips@aptient.com</a>> [151115 17:20 -0800]:<br>
> > > >>>> > Begs the question, what defines a highly-active member? And of<br>
> > which<br>
> > > >>>> > community, peering in general or within PeeringDB itself?<br>
> > > >>>> Right, which is why we axed giving admins special membership to<br>
> > begin<br>
> > > >>>> with.<br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>> In this case, I believe he was referring to the PeeringDB community,<br>
> > > >>>> since Florian does support tickets and helps out a lot.<br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>> I don't like the way this feels. Think about it in this context:<br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>> I have two votes today - for FL-IX and Netflix. Does this mean I<br>
> > should<br>
> > > >>> have 3 votes, an additional one for the fact that I'm a PDB admin?<br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>> I don't think you're silencing someone by not giving them a vote; I<br>
> > > >>> think you're cementing legitimacy in the election by sticking to a<br>
> > > >>> documented process and procedure. This (hopefully) isn't a popularity<br>
> > > >>> contest - it's a real election for a real asset with real<br>
> > responsibilities.<br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>> The bylaws are clear- membership is proscribed to an organization<br>
> > (the<br>
> > > >>> use of the word "may" there is the opposite of "may not" and is<br>
> > inclusive),<br>
> > > >>> with an individual representative of that organization.<br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>> I'm in favor of being an inclusive organization, and Florian<br>
> > absolutely<br>
> > > >>> deserves a vote - whether it's his own through an organization, or<br>
> > proxied<br>
> > > >>> through another. This is something that needs to be fixed before the<br>
> > next<br>
> > > >>> election (to be clearer).<br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>> Regards,<br>
> > > >>> -Dave<br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>> ><br>
> > > >>>> > On 11/15/2015 3:28 PM, Chris Malayter wrote:<br>
> > > >>>> > > I agree with Matt. There’s no reason to silence a highly active<br>
> > > >>>> > > member of the community.<br>
> > > >>>> > ><br>
> > > >>>> > > -Chris<br>
> > > >>>> > ><br>
> > > >>>> > >> On Nov 15, 2015, at 6:21 PM, Matt Griswold <<a href="mailto:grizz@20c.com">grizz@20c.com</a>><br>
> > wrote:<br>
> > > >>>> > >><br>
> > > >>>> > >> I read it as (and did when we were making it) a corporation<br>
> > may be<br>
> > > >>>> > >> a member in addition to an individual. Not a huge deal and I<br>
> > > >>>> > >> agree that we shouldn't change any language now, but thought<br>
> > it<br>
> > > >>>> > >> should be brought up for future board consideration.<br>
> > > >>>> > >><br>
> > > >>>> > >> In cases like this, where Florian isn't currently at an<br>
> > > >>>> > >> organization yet retains his account because he's an admin<br>
> > and<br>
> > > >>>> > >> does tickets, I think he should still have a voice in any<br>
> > > >>>> > >> election.<br>
> > > >>>> > >><br>
> > > >>>> > >><br>
> > > >>>> > >> * Chris Caputo <<a href="mailto:secretary@peeringdb.com">secretary@peeringdb.com</a>> [151115 18:04 +0000]:<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> Keeping in mind article 2 of:<br>
> > > >>>> > >>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>><br>
> > <a href="https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf</a><br>
> > > >>>> > >>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>> The intention as written is that there is one class of<br>
> > members and<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> that class consists of organizations, each with a single<br>
> > vote.<br>
> > > >>>> > >>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>> - 2.2 Qualifications for Membership.<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> - A corporation, limited liability company, partnership or<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> other legal business entity may be a Member of the<br>
> > Corporation.<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> Membership is determined by having both an active<br>
> > PeeringDB.com<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> account and an individual representative or role<br>
> > subscription to<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> the PeeringDB Governance mailing list:<br>
> > > >>>> > >>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi</a><br>
> > bin/mailman/listinfo/pdbgov<br>
> > > >>>> > >>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>> - Members may have such other qualifications as the Board<br>
> > may<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> prescribe by amendment to these Bylaws.<br>
> > > >>>> > >>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>> So the first part of 2.2 says what "may" be a member, and then<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> says that from that pool of possible members, that both an<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> active PeeringDB.com account is needed, along with there<br>
> > being a<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> representative (individual or role) subscription to this<br>
> > pdb-gov<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> list.<br>
> > > >>>> > >>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>> Implicit by the first sentence is that "active PeeringDB.com<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> account" in the second sentence refers to organizational,<br>
> > not<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> individual, PeeringDB.com accounts.<br>
> > > >>>> > >>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>> I don't believe it would be wise to revise the draft documents<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> during the present election, but once the election is over,<br>
> > the<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> initial board (or subsequent board or member meeting) may<br>
> > want<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> to clarify that second sentence by inserting the word<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> "organizational" between "active" and "PeeringDB.com<br>
> > account",<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> but first I'd be curious to know if that was the source of<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> confusion.<br>
> > > >>>> > >>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>> Did you or Matt think that a person with an individual<br>
> > PeeringDB<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> account, subscribed to this pdb-gov list, would be sufficient<br>
> > to<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> qualify for membership, based on that second sentence of 2.2?<br>
> > > >>>> > >>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>> In addition to, or instead of, the clarification idea above, a<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> future board or member meeting could certainly revise the<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> definition of membership to be more inclusive, such as by<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> creating a category of membership eligibility for active<br>
> > > >>>> > >>> PeeringDB admins.<br>
> > > >>>> > >>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>> Chris<br>
> > > >>>> > >>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2015, Florian Hibler wrote:<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> Good morning pdb-gov,<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> after my attempt to register for voting on the PDB board<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> yesterday, I figured out, that I am (according to the<br>
> > bylaws,<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> as Chris told me), not eligible to vote, as I am not<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> representing an org with a PeeringDB entry at the moment.<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> Nethertheless I am actively involved into PDB and<br>
> > according to<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> Matt Griswold I should be entitled to vote.<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> The paragraph which excludes me from voting is according to<br>
> > Chris<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> the following in the bylaws<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> (<br>
> > <a href="https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.caputo.com/pdb/20151112_PeeringDB_DRAFT_Bylaws.pdf</a><br>
> > > >>>> ):<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> 2.2 Qualifications for Membership:<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> "A corporation, limited liability company, partnership or<br>
> > other<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> legal business entity may be a Member of the Corporation.<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> Membership is determined by having both an active<br>
> > PeeringDB.com<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> account and an individual representative or role<br>
> > subscription<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> to the PeeringDB Governance mailing list:<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-</a><br>
> > bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> Members may have such other qualifications as the Board may<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> prescribe by amendment to these Bylaws."<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> Matt sees it a bit different, so we decided to bring the<br>
> > topic up<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> here and see what other people think about it. Your input<br>
> > is<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> highly appreciated and looking very much forward to hear<br>
> > from<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> you on this topic!<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> Bests,<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> Florian<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> --<br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> Florian Hibler <<a href="mailto:fhibler@peeringdb.com">fhibler@peeringdb.com</a>><br>
> > > >>>> > >>>> PeeringDB Administrator<br>
> > > >>>> > >><br>
> > > >>>> > >> _______________________________________________<br>
> > > >>>> > >> Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> > > >>>> > >> <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> > > >>>> > >> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
> > > >>>> > ><br>
> > > >>>> > > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > >>>> > > Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> > > >>>> > > <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> > > >>>> > > <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
> > > >>>> > ><br>
> > > >>>> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > >>>> > Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> > > >>>> > <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> > > >>>> > <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>> _______________________________________________<br>
> > > >>>> Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> > > >>>> <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> > > >>>> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>> _______________________________________________<br>
> > > >>> Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> > > >>> <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> > > >>> <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > --<br>
> > > > Dan Golding | Network Infrastructure Engineering | <a href="mailto:dgolding@google.com">dgolding@google.com</a><br>
> > | +1<br>
> > > > <a href="tel:202-370-5916" value="+12023705916">202-370-5916</a><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > > Pdb-gov mailing list<br>
> > > > <a href="mailto:Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com">Pdb-gov@lists.peeringdb.com</a><br>
> > > > <a href="http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov</a><br>
> > > ><br>
> > > ><br>
> > ><br>
> ><br>
> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>