-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- -----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Timothy M. Denton
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 7:47 PM
To: Ca-reg Announce
Cc: Bernard Turcotte
Subject: [CAREG-ANNOUNCE] CIRA Board Meeting Results
Please note these are my notes from the meeting. These results are
NOT official. I would have hoped that CIRA would have communicated
the exact results by this time, but Bernie Turcotte is totally
overloaded. So read results as my notes, not as the official word.
Board Members Present
Scott Knapman (Telus), Maureen Cubberley (chairman), Andy Bjerring
(Canarie), John Demco (registrars), Colin Campbell (CAIP), Glen Bloom
(IP lawyer), Drew Olsen (Industry Canada, ex-officio)
Staff: Bernard Turcotte
Lawyers: Sheldon Burshtein, Beth Gearing
Guest: Timothy Denton, .ca registrars group
Operational Transfer Date
The Board, and the Board alone, decided the following:
1. UBC keeps operating til December 1, and takes no new names.
2. On November 8, CIRA changes the methods it uses for dealing with
new names. Prior to November 8, new names are dealt with on the
carousel method. After November 8, applications are dealt with
first-come, first-served (FCFS).
3. In fact, UBC actually processes the names in the period November
1- December 1, and a contract between CIRA and UBC governs the
situation. My understanding is that while CIRA is taking new names,
it will be UBC that accomplishes the processing.
4. On December 1, operations transfer to CIRA.
5. In the meantime, CIRA uses phone banks and advertizing to reduce
as much as possible the number of people who fail to register.
ALL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DETAILS AND IMPLICATIONS OF THIS SHOULD
BE DIRECTED TO CIRA.
The Board clearly understood its obligation to take action to avoid
certain impending disaster and keep the Internet working rather than
be concerned for contingent liabilities if it had not made this
decision. I told them that they had made the correct decision. Our
recommendation to keep a November 1 date was based on two conditions:
a) that technically CIRA could handle it, and b) that they engaged in
a massive campaign of publicity to alert those who have failed to
re-register.
2. Recognition of the ca-registrars group
I was invited to the next Board Meeting as a representative of this
group. The Board took no action formally to recognize this group at
yesterday's meeting. Some concerns had been expressed regarding the
representivity of the group. I explained that we had organized
ourselves, dealt with a number of issues, rounded up as many as we
could in the time available, and made submissions to CIRA on the
basis of those who self-identified in time. The email list of
CIRA-accredited registrars, which we had only received in the
afternoon of the day before, would be basis of the ca-discuss list
and the ca-announce list; that all accredited registrars are members
of this group, and that each registrar had a vote. I pointed out that
the process of forming the group was fast because we had been
expected to get into action quickly, and that much of the sense of
timing was the then-impending November 1 deadline and the timing of
the Board meeting, which, at the time, looked as if it were going to
be the only one remaining in this calendar year. The registrars group
in the DNSO of ICANN has only about 20% participation, though each is
free to join.
Recognition would in effect amount to the replacement of John Demco,
the registrars' representative, by a person nominated by this group,
and the approval of that person by CIRA. Since elections to the CIRA
Board will take place before May, 2001, it may be that a
representative of this group continues to sit as a guest at the CIRA
Board, and that a registrars' Board member does not sit until
elections result - I hope - in the movement of John Demco from
registrars' rep to a voted-in Board member.
I told the Board that the ca-registrars group was a self-organizing
anarchic collective of individuals :-); that we had no legal
structure, but a list-serve and soon a website; and that we intended
to keep it that way until a decision was made by the members that
they wanted a more formal legal structure. (John Demco suggested we
be "ac.ca" for "anarchic collective.ca":-)
The model we are following is that of the registrars' interest group
in the DNSO of ICANN.
3. Amendments to By-Laws of the Board
A package of possible amendments to the by-laws governing the
operation of CIRA was discussed. Many provisions that would have
caused problems were eliminated or deferred to the time when an
elected Board would deal with them.
Here is a list of the najor decisions.
The Board would consist of 12 people, nine elected at large and three
from constituencies: commercial internet interests, registrars, and
Internet users.
The Chairman, Maureen Cubberley, pledged that elections would take
place in May-April 2001. Elections would take place through a process
akin to the one used recently by ICANN, featuring voting and
self-nominations through secure access to a members' website.
There would be a CIRA-nominated slate for the 9 available
directorships.
One could also self-nominate, within a time period. The candidates
for nominations would go up on a CIRA website. Other people could
show their approval by clicking on to as many nominees as they
wished, once only for each nominee. Example: I could approve the
nomination say, of 12 people. I could click on to their names once
only. You, on the other hand, could approve the nomination of all
candidates for election, clicking once only for each candidate you
selected.
Those nominees who garner a minimum of 50 supporters in the time
period for nominations would then be ranked according to their
standing in the nominations. The 81 top nominees (9 candidates for
nine seats)would be allowed to stand for election alonside the
CIRA-nominated slate of nine people.
Thus, up to ten nominees could vie for each elected Board position.
Thus a CIRA election could feature 9 candidates nominated by CIRA for
the available 9 seats and another 81 candidates for the total of 90
candidates for the total of nine elected seats.
The nominations period closes.
The candidates express their positions on a web page. Later, a vote
takes place, by clicking onto the web page.
Voting is by enumerated preference. You would get nine votes as a
CIRA member. Rank your candidates in order of preference, as we did
in the recent ICANN election.
Under the current thinking, the Board would meet once again before
year end to consider and approve the limited number of by-law changes
that survived their scrutiny.
4. Issues not discussed
The registrars' agreement, changes to the registrars' agreement, and
technical issues were not formally part of the agenda. I have
indicated to the Board that the registrars have concerns with both
areas and that they need to be dealt with, but much of what we wish
to do awaits the election of a Board.
5. Overall Impression
I was favourably impressed with the good intentions fo the Chairman,
the quality of discussion and the reception I received. I would have
wished for imediate recognition of this group. However, the Board was
putting off as many decisions as it could to focus on the essential
question of the OTD to CIRA from UBC. We have been invited to the
next Board meeting.
As of today all CIRA-accredited registrars are a part of this list
serve. I think that a comprehensive will do much to reassure CIRA
that the ca-registrars group is representative. I think the Board
needs the reinforcement that would be brought by elections, and I am
encouraged that the Chairman is insisting that they be in spring next
year.
Timothy Denton
Interim Coordinator
.ca-registrars
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.tmdenton.com
613-789-5397
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.7 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOfoJp2+3tRWQJwEJEQLMJwCePaligKN5WrLpLXZBsFBR2tFLj1gAoLmT
hUqpp45FRu04UoOorVz5HDOP
=pNXo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
