cctld CIRA screws up the voting. In a move right out of the 19th century..

[DropWizard.com]

Read about it here

 

[msn]

The irony here should not be lost on people, especially Frank: it seems to be far easier to register a domain than to have a chance of getting a membership so as to have a vote at CIRA. If you want a vote they want to have everything from you, but if you want a domain name registration, all they are really interested in is your money.

This comes after CIRA no longer required 'automatic' membership as an option when registering a domain and introducing the hidden WHOIS for individuals, which only served to create many more non-qualified registrants.

 

[DropWizard.com]

Wow we've had some guns from CIRA jumping in and heating things up.

Here

BTW you don't need to be a group member to comment if you are a member of linkedin you can comment it just goes to moderation first.

 

[msn]

This goes back to the quality of the domain registrant clearing process. CIRA is willing to check its members, but made membership optional. This enables anyone who wants to work around the rules to register any .ca domain they want without any consequences.

Gordon - for everyone else to see the response you got:

Mark Buell • Hi, Gordon - it sounds like you are having difficulties with the Membership process at CIRA, not the voting process. Please email your email address that is attached to your CIRA Membership and we will sort it out for you right away. Thanks, Mark.
​

By way of comparison, I have flagged violations with domains that are improperly registered and they are simply ignored: zero transparency.

Ben Lucier • So you're not a member?

There are two things here... there's an election process AND a member process. I don't think the voting process is broken like you indicate. It sounds like your concern is the trouble becoming a member in a speedy fashion.

So if we can agree that the voting process is fine, we can talk about the next topic:

The difficulty in becoming a member. It's actually pretty simple and validation only needs to be done once. As you indicate, there are 3 options to becoming a member. Seems reasonable to me. Lots of people have done it.

So the REAL issue seems to be that you're frustrated you can't become a member as quickly as you would like. Because you won't be able to vote in time.

My question would be: Why do you want to become a member? If it's solely to cast a vote for a friend, then I'm glad you're having trouble.

Members aren't THAT important to CIRA. ENGAGED members are.

If you want to complain about the members acceptance/approvals process, go ahead... I might even support you.

But consider the point your arguing first. Are you arguing for the good of CIRA, or to help a buddy out? Maybe it's both...

But bad mouthing the organization that a member is supposed to support, well, that just doesn't seem right to me. CIRA is an organization its members should be proud to support, not tear down, sir.

​

If validation is so easy, why does CIRA not do it for every registrant?

"It's actually pretty simple and validation only needs to be done once."

There is no shortage of money at CIRA, so why not enforce policy?

As usual, no answer, no transparency, and definitely no improvement.

Paul Andersen, P. Eng • Let me understand correctly.

Is the concern here is that in an Internet Election we are asking for some minimal bar that allows us to know who is actually voting before putting them on the list?

Last time I checked when you voted in a federal election you have to show some kind of identification before you can vote the first time in a specific poll.

Our policy is that one person may cast a single vote. The only reasonable way to do that is to ensure a voter is verified to a minimal degree.

Yes one method is to photocopy your ID and send it by postal mail. There is also the other allowable methods. We allow multiple methods because one method doesn't fit everyone's circumstances.

You can also attend any of our events and register on the spot.

And you only need to do it once as long as you don't let the domain(s) associated with the membership expire.

We're also open to improvement of the process. What would you suggest such that we can enforce that everyone who has a domain and wants to vote can - but only vote once.

Cheers,

Paul
​

Replace 'voting' with 'registering' and suddenly the interest is not there. Why?

If he had said "we are asking for some minimal bar that allows us to know who is actually registering before putting them in the system" would that be too much to ask?

CIRA instead practices "don't ask, don't tell'.

 

[poing]

Thanks for all of the feedback and for you Gordon posting the thread.

I do see how CIRA felt it was necessary to introduce authentification before allowing to vote - especially with some manipulation of the votes/shows of support that has occurred in the past. Of course it would be great to make voting available to all stakeholders as easily as possible. One of my family members who signed up to vote for me before the deadline on the Friday before the AGM is still waiting for her membership confirmation today, that seems really odd.

It's a valid question if domain ownership and CIRA membership should be separated, I've found in the past that the option of CIRA membership seemed to confuse small business and individual registrants who I talked to.

I also do think the lack of follow-up on complaints based against domains under the current rules makes me wonder, just like it seems that registrar applicants are not treated equally either. This is something I'm trying to gain more clarity/data on should I be elected and probably as well if I am not elected, since I will most likely run again next year in that case.