[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

[Owen DeLong]

> On Nov 18, 2015, at 15:10 , Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com> wrote:
> 
> I think IXes are part of the PeeringDB core constituency, and I think they 
> are among the most likely to contribute money.
> 
> I think low-cost ($5?) annual fee-based individual memberships are an 
> interesting solution to what started this thread, assuming you mean in 
> addition to organizational members.  Folks could pay the fee for others, 
> as a way of supporting their volunteering.

Yes… Absolutely.


> This could all be done as a single class of Member.  Ie., equal voting 
> rights.

I think that would be best.

Owen

> 
> Chris
> 
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2015, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> I would say that they may well have a vested interest in the usefulness 
>> and management of peeringdb even though they are not directly peering 
>> themselves. Yes.
>> 
>> Why do you find this hard to believe?
>> 
>> As to stock classes… The difference is that currently, unaffiliated 
>> individuals have no path to suffrage.
>> 
>> While I agree we should not change the rules for this election, I do 
>> think it is worth considering in the longer term.
>> 
>> Owen
>> 
>>> On Nov 18, 2015, at 14:48 , bill manning <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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-gov/attachments/20151118/5ad47c05/attachment-0001.html>