CIRA 2025 Board Elections (3.Viewing)

Active Topics New Topic
mgamble said:
Of course, if you want to ask me about something the board hasn’t discussed, like whether CIRA should start a space program, I’d be happy to give you my personal thoughts!
Click to expand...

Welcome aboard mgamble @mgamble

We also have a Hushed section that keeps things off Google and you can send direct messages to members, both of which keep your conversations more private.

That said, I think I have learned more about CIRA and how the elections work in the past few days than ever before so I am happy to see the points brought up here.
 
FM said:
He's joking, right? :O
Click to expand...

FWIW that's exactly the response I wanted and why I prefaced the questions with the "Yes/No". I didn't need them to demonstrate, I just wanted them to attest.

mgamble said:
once the board adopts a position, we are obligated to speak with one voice
Click to expand...

I wanted to respond to this theme from your earlier comment but forgot, thanks for the reminder. :)

While it's true that as a board collective you must defer to the board's spokesperson (the chair), you are still an individual human and you are allowed to speak on your own personal opinions. It's not that hard to do both. Here's a template:

"Mr. Gamble, can you please share your thoughts with respect to fuddle-duddle?"

"Well it's clear that the board has collectively decided that we are going to pursue fuddle-duddle and I support the collective decision that the board has made and will not disrespect the board's decision, just as I'd expect from all other board members on contentious topics.

For more information on the board's collective decision, I ask you go to the chair so that there's no confusion on the board's collective justifications.

Having said that, as an individual - and I do stress, these are my individual opinions - I voted against fuddle-duddle and the reasons I did that were A, B, and C. I think it's important to have a diversity of opinion at the board table and I feel very safe being able to voice my thoughts during debate.

But that's the bottom line - the debate is over, the decision has been made. I once again stress that I support the board's decision.

The board has a great working relationship between board members and the CEO. We work very well together. We're in this for all Canadian users."
 
FM said:
I'm having a hard time picking ANY of the people selected from the Nomination committee. I am not generally a fan of wasting votes, but there are 5 candidates and 3 of them will be voted in...
Click to expand...

I'm struggling too but given only a minority of them responded to my questions, that makes my decision a lot easier than before.
 
jamesaepp said:
While it's true that as a board collective you must defer to the board's spokesperson (the chair), you are still an individual human and you are allowed to speak on your own personal opinions. It's not that hard to do both. Here's a template:
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing this perspective. I know some people feel that a director can preface remarks with “this is my personal opinion” and then go on to share views that differ from the board’s decision. Personally, I do not agree with that approach.

For me, once the board has debated an issue and adopted a position, that position belongs to the board as a whole. Continuing to air dissenting personal opinions in public, even with careful disclaimers, undermines the collective voice of the board and can create confusion about where the organization actually stands.

That does not mean there is no healthy debate internally. There absolutely is, and I value being able to bring my own views to the table. But I believe that debate belongs in the boardroom, not outside of it. Once a decision is made, I feel it is my duty to support the board’s position and uphold the principle of one voice.

I respect that others see this differently, but this is the standard I hold myself to.
 
I could take this sub-debate in many different directions but I don't think it'd be productive. You're quite brave for making that statement on a forum like this (an environment which naturally encourages open debate/disagreement).

I have a new question to consider for next year's candidates/election.
 
jamesaepp said:
I could take this sub-debate in many different directions but I don't think it'd be productive. You're quite brave for making that statement on a forum like this (an environment which naturally encourages open debate/disagreement).
Click to expand...

I appreciate that, and I am always happy to have open debate and disagreement on any topic that has not been discussed in the boardroom. I do think it is important for people to understand the handcuffs and constraints that sitting board members operate under when asked about hot topics. Once the board has debated an issue and adopted a position, the responsibility of directors is to support that position, even if our personal views during the debate may have differed.
 
Heather's response is below. I have only edited it to include the original questions for readability (as accepted by her).


Hello - I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. I have been under the weather.

Answers to your questions:

(Yes/No, please) Could you confidently explain the differences between a registry, a registrar, a registrant, the DNS, and domain levels to a fifth-grader?
Yes.

Do you believe CIRA is privileged as the operator of a monopoly and how does/would this influence your decisions at the board table?
Yes. CIRA has a monopoly position as the .CA registry. This reality means decisions must balance responsibility to Canadians with fairness, transparency, and accountability.

There's a lot of talented people both on and competing to be on the board. What makes you special?
I bring nearly 30 years of Canadian tech experience, a mix of SaaS and nonprofit leadership, and a strong focus on digital equity. What makes me different is that I understand both the policy and technical side while also representing small businesses, independent developers, and nonprofits who rely on Canada's internet infrastructure. I am a fresh NEW voice.

How do you think CIRA can improve member and stakeholder engagement?
CIRA can improve engagement by meeting members where they already are. That means clearer, more accessible communication, providing more interactive and real-time ways for members to give input, and ensuring stakeholder concerns lead to visible outcomes.

(Yes/No, please) Do you consent to me sharing your responses?
I would be able to provide consent on you sharing my answers but I would first need to know where you would be sharing my responses and whether they would be shared in full and unedited.

Thank you for your questions,
Heather
 
mgamble said:
Thanks for sharing this perspective. I know some people feel that a director can preface remarks with “this is my personal opinion” and then go on to share views that differ from the board’s decision. Personally, I do not agree with that approach.

For me, once the board has debated an issue and adopted a position, that position belongs to the board as a whole. Continuing to air dissenting personal opinions in public, even with careful disclaimers, undermines the collective voice of the board and can create confusion about where the organization actually stands.

That does not mean there is no healthy debate internally. There absolutely is, and I value being able to bring my own views to the table. But I believe that debate belongs in the boardroom, not outside of it. Once a decision is made, I feel it is my duty to support the board’s position and uphold the principle of one voice.

I respect that others see this differently, but this is the standard I hold myself to.
Click to expand...

The glaring problem with that approach is that the public doesn't really get to see it. We just see the end result which feels like decisions are made without much thought or debate. The only real issue I have with CIRA is the mandate creep and empire building off the back of the monopoly. If Holland wants to do that extra stuff, great, start your own business and use your own dollars, not mine or CIRA's.

Since we don't see the debates, we all imagine this is how it goes:

Mr. Holland: I'm making a motion on this new idea how to spend more CIRA dollars, it'll grow my empire and of course we'll all need commensurate raises. No one opposes that, right? Ok, motion passes.
 
rlm said:
The glaring problem with that approach is that the public doesn't really get to see it. We just see the end result which feels like decisions are made without much thought or debate. The only real issue I have with CIRA is the mandate creep and empire building off the back of the monopoly. If Holland wants to do that extra stuff, great, start your own business and use your own dollars, not mine or CIRA's.

Since we don't see the debates, we all imagine this is how it goes:

Mr. Holland: I'm making a motion on this new idea how to spend more CIRA dollars, it'll grow my empire and of course we'll all need commensurate raises. No one opposes that, right? Ok, motion passes.
Click to expand...

I completely understand how, from the outside, it can feel like board decisions come out of nowhere without much visible debate. The reality is that the boardroom discussions are often thoughtful, sometimes vigorous, and very focused on whether an initiative is aligned with CIRA’s mission and in the best interests of the membership. The challenge is that, by design, members only see the final decision and not the process that led there.

On the point about “mandate creep,” I think this is a very fair concern to raise. CIRA’s core mandate will always be the safe and secure operation of the .CA registry, but the organization has also invested in programs like Canadian Shield and cybersecurity services in response to member demand for a stronger, safer Canadian internet. I recognize not everyone agrees with that direction, but I want to stress that these decisions are not made lightly, nor are they rubber-stamped. They are debated carefully with financial sustainability and member value in mind.

I respect that reasonable people can disagree on how far CIRA should go beyond the core registry role, and I welcome continued discussion on that point.
 
mgamble said:
I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective. A couple of quick clarifications:
  • On communication: You are correct that as a sitting director, I don’t communicate individually about board matters outside of official CIRA channels. That’s intentional and in line with good governance - the board speaks with one voice, and that voice is the Chair. The only time you’ll hear directly from me as an individual is during an election campaign, which is the one window where candidates are permitted to reach out.
  • On my Packers fandom: I’m not going to apologize for being a die-hard Green Bay Packers fan and having a little tongue-in-cheek fun with my LinkedIn profile. I’d like to think we can all allow a bit of personality in our professional lives.
  • On services and expenses: It’s fair if you disagree with CIRA’s expansion into areas beyond the core registry function. That’s a legitimate debate. But it’s important to note that much of the increase in operational and staff expenses you’ve flagged in other posts are tied directly to those diversified services - such as our investments in cybersecurity offerings like CIRA Canadian Shield and XDR. These are intended to both strengthen Canada’s internet ecosystem and reduce CIRA’s long-term dependency on domain revenues.
I respect that not everyone agrees with this direction, but I stand by the belief that CIRA needs to invest and innovate responsibly to continue delivering value to Canadians.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarifications, Matthew. A few follow-up questions as you seek member support:

1. Financial Breakdown: You mention that operational and staff expense increases are "tied directly to diversified services" like Canadian Shield and XDR. Can you provide a breakdown of how much of the $28 million is core .CA registry operations versus these other ventures?

2. Mandate Scope: You reference CIRA's "expansion into areas beyond the core registry function" and reducing "long-term dependency on domain revenues." How do these diversified services align with CIRA's mandate to serve .CA registrants? Are registry fees subsidizing non-registry activities?

3. Member Oversight: Given your statement that you "stand by" this diversification direction, how will you ensure members have adequate transparency to evaluate whether their fees are being used appropriately for these expanded activities?

4. Board Governance: You mention the board "speaks with one voice" through the Chair. How does this ensure individual director accountability to members, especially when major strategic shifts like diversification are involved?

Byron Holland sidestepped similar questions about these escalating expenses. As a candidate, this is your opportunity to demonstrate transparency and accountability.
 
In my opinion, CIRA should not be creating other services that may now, or in the future, compete with free enterprise.

CIRA has in the past actively pitched the creation of other gTLDs such as .toronto (which would have been a direct competitor to .CA, WTF??), so they could collect fees for running the registry. There's no way in my opinion that should have ever happened.

Another WTF moment was in regards to FURY. I understand why they created it, it is a justifiable part of the mandate. However, under what justification were they allowed to sell it? I could understand licensing it as a revenue stream to pay for its creation, maintenance, future upgrades, etc, and to lower .CA registration fees. But selling it??

Free services such as Canadian Shield isn't a necessary part of the .CA registry. But since CIRA is already running nameservers, its not too much of a stretch to add the ability to filter potentially harmful content. That one you can at least somewhat justify. The real issue is, who decides what sites are rated Private, Protected and Family ?

Any pay-for services (cyber security?) shouldn't be part of CIRA. That is mandate creep. That's a good example of competing against free enterprise using the .CA monopoly to fund the creation of those non-mandated services.
 
I think there's a lot of fair questions being raised but I don't want all the pressure to be on mgamble @mgamble.

As the saying goes, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt". He shouldn't be the only one taking that risk.

I've noticed mzahra @mzahra and heathermaga @heathermaga are new members. Don't ask permission to jump in. :)
 
davidm said:
Byron Holland sidestepped similar questions about these escalating expenses.
Click to expand...

I've uploaded your Q&A here:

Editorial notes:
  1. I added a fade in and fade out.
  2. I blurred out the marquee - seemed like a reasonable compromise. The names of every CIRA attendee are unlikely to be published in the minutes or part of the recording, and I know some people prefer not to be named. I'd rather not open the can of worms. Nothing is gained by leaving it in the recording, so removed it is.
  3. 1 & 2 approach the extent of my video editing skills.
  4. The substance of the question and answer is unedited.
  5. It wasn't a ""closed"" meeting. As such I don't feel the need to ask consent to record it or use it in a manner like this. I was a participant in the call as much as anyone else.
  6. You'll hear some weird noise in the background. I tried to keep my mic muted when not speaking but I failed at times. Noisy chair. Sorry.
 
I think a dozen might be an exaggeration but yes it is very good to see. Might be a bit too late to change many opinions with less than 48 hours in the voting period but hopefully this starts a trend of more engagement in future years!
 
jamesaepp said:
I think a dozen might be an exaggeration but yes it is very good to see. Might be a bit too late to change many opinions with less than 48 hours in the voting period but hopefully this starts a trend of more engagement in future years!
Click to expand...

You don't see what I see, all I can reveal is it's good to see participation from all sides. Dialog is key and I'm happy people are getting involved.
 

Sponsors who contribute to keep dn.ca free for everyone.

Sponsor
CanSpace
CIRA
FullHost
NameNinja
WHC
Donors

Sponsors who contribute to keep dn.ca free.

Members who recently read this topic: 54

Back