[PDB-gov] Voting eligibility

[Hannigan, Martin]

Even if we moved it under an existing entity, there’s still the problem of membership which is a corporate governance issue rooted in the bylaws. Kicking the can.

Another organization addressed the multi-community membership and voting problem problem we are discussing like this:

o Single membership class
o Each member gets a single vote for everything
o No more than 5 votes per “employer”

Example, 100 members vote and 16 vote no and 84 vote yes. 74 of those voting yes are employed by a single company, the yes votes would be reduced to 15 and the proposition would fail. 

That might  work for PeeringDB. There’s overhead in tracking, but it’s manageable.

If you merge PDB to another organization you’regoing to have the membership issue regardless. Anyone considered creating a trust? If PDB were to become part of Open-IX for example, I could see the trust path. Would create an insurance policy around the assets and provide for the independence that the poll confirmed we wall wanted. The replacement problem would then be is everyone required to pay a membership fee to become part of Open-IX and get the right to vote. That is not unreasonable IMHO and the content of PDB could remain open to the public, much like the Open-IX supported standards body.

Best,

-M<




> On Nov 21, 2015, at 5:50 AM, Andy Davidson <andy.davidson at ask4.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Christian Koch wrote:
>> this is so broken. its unfortunate.
> 
> This is really broken and embarrassing indeed.  I think in fact this could be evidence that a separate organisation and board might rather be overthinking this whole setup. :-(  I’m sorry for adding a voice to go along with it when canvassed.
> 
> Andy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pdb-gov mailing list
> Pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
> http://lists.peeringdb.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdb-gov