[PDB-gov] organizational documents

Wed Oct 21 07:25:53 PDT 2015

Hi Dan,

So do I. But the braintrust of NANOG, Open-IX and PeeringDB are here and have lessons to contribute. PeeringDB has done it's job and should continue to update people and urge them to participate.

That doesn't need to hold them back. Hope that helps.

Best,

Martin Hannigan / AS 20940

________________________________
From: Daniel Golding <dgolding at google.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 10:14 AM
To: Hannigan, Martin
Cc: pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com
Subject: Re: [PDB-gov] organizational documents

Marty,

I think BoD elections will have a little more impact that red vs blue bowl.

Dan

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com<mailto:marty at akamai.com>> wrote:

Hi Team,

If PDB has to solicit feedback from every corner of the earth for mundane things like if they are going to have a red bowl for the soup vs. a blue one, they'll get nothing done. A lawyer is a reasonable minimum and they have one.

Keep going.

Best,

Martin Hannigan / AS 20940

________________________________
From: Daniel Golding <dgolding at google.com<mailto:dgolding at google.com>>
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 9:58 AM
To: Patrick Gilmore
Cc: pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com<mailto:pdb-gov at lists.peeringdb.com>
Subject: Re: [PDB-gov] organizational documents

Considering the relatively small number of folks on this list and the lack of activity (up until now), its important that this process is promoted a bit more widely - NANOG ,RIPE, etc mailing lists, and other forums. In order to have a real mandate, I suggest getting at least 500 folks on list...

Dan

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Patrick Gilmore <patrick at peeringdb.com<mailto:patrick at peeringdb.com>> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2015, at 5:30 AM, Hannigan, Martin <marty at akamai.com<mailto:marty at akamai.com>> wrote:
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 02:52, Chris Caputo <secretary at peeringdb.com<mailto:secretary at peeringdb.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>>
>>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2015, Chris Malayter wrote:
>>> I would suggest you incorporate in a friendly state for not-for-profits.
>>> Aka, Arizona or Delaware…not Washington.
>>
>> Is there something you know about Washington state which suggests it is
>> not a friendly state for not-for-profits?
>>
>> The attorney (Steve Fisher, Foster Pepper) we have been working with so
>> far, provided us with the following when we considered other states:
>>
>> - "A lot of for-profit companies (almost all publically traded
>>   companies) file in Delaware because there is a massive body of
>>   judicial decisions about shareholder rights, board of director and
>>   officer liability, merger rights for shareholders, hostile take-overs,
>>   minority shareholder protections, etc.  I just have never heard of
>>   going to DE for non-profits.  We have hundreds of non-profits at the
>>   law firm but I couldn't find one this morning in my search that was
>>   Delaware.  Washington corporate law is basically identical to Delaware
>>   corporate law, especially with respect to liability of its officers
>>   and directors.  You are only going to be liable as an officer or
>>   director if you commit tax fraud securities fraud, or some other
>>   heinous act and the non-profit corporation won't shield you
>>   personally.  That is the same in Delaware as it is in Washington."
>
>
> Open-ix went to DE. Similar to WA, and friendly to electronic management eg board and member voting, etc.
>
> I'm ok with whatever the board decides.

I had the same question when we started this. However, after speaking with the lawyer, there really isn’t anything our org will gain from DE vs. WA. On the flip side, we get free legal counsel in WA, and at least two of the people (Chris & Patrick) were involved in a 501(c)(6) set up in WA, so we have some experience with this.

Seemed like a good choice. Plus it is not irreversible. Corporations are allowed to move.

--
TTFN,
patrick

_______________________________________________
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.peeringdb.com_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_pdb-2Dgov&d=CwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=XDN_BIPGnpb6V0w5M9FADw&m=ToyrvvDBvJV18wLPUDuvDJ6hZNphcDjQcv4DIzew8nM&s=pZ1929Bo6EebIpGtH5UHDfu4m4AjrKhS6UZEJS60EvM&e=>

--
Dan Golding |    Network Infrastructure Engineering |    dgolding at google.com<mailto:dgolding at google.com> |        +1 202-370-5916<tel:%2B1%20202-370-5916>

_______________________________________________
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.peeringdb.com_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_pdb-2Dgov&d=CwMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=XDN_BIPGnpb6V0w5M9FADw&m=zDYseYp2NPhiBYI5hHwJoXvAceX2NWnsABak8egmKYs&s=Of0R457pPGLfFj_LIuY_CMfbpYGgg34K7629DEirWEI&e=>

--
Dan Golding |    Network Infrastructure Engineering |    dgolding at google.com<mailto:dgolding at google.com> |        +1 202-370-5916

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.peeringdb.com/pipermail/pdb-gov/attachments/20151021/f968a7cc/attachment.html>