1 ABOUT BOARD MEETING AGENDA This menu captures the planned agenda for the next meeting of the NCF Board. It will be built over the time between meetings and will reflect items as they are identified and added to the agenda. Where ever ^Cpossible, as an item is added to the agenda, any backup documentation Window #0: Screen Choice ++> @ nopage Paging OFF Window #0: Screen Choice ++> 1 ABOUT BOARD MEETING AGENDA This menu captures the planned agenda for the next meeting of the NCF Board. It will be built over the time between meetings and will reflect items as they are identified and added to the agenda. Where ever possible, as an item is added to the agenda, any backup documentation necessary to understand the background and issues involved in the item will also be added to the Agenda menu. This approach to building the agenda of a meeting is intended to help Board members by providing them with easy and immediate access to the most current information on the next meeting, and so help them to be prepared for the meeting. To any member of NCF, the same information gives them a view of the current issues, and provides some advance notice before a meeting in case they wish to offer their views on any topic to Board members. Since all Board meetings are open to the public, individuals may want to followup on a topic of interest by attending the meeting when the topic is on the agenda. Window #0: Screen Choice ++> 2 National Capital FreeNet Board Meeting, September 20, 1994 Senate Room Robertson Hall (formerly the Admin Building) Carleton University * * * Note change in location * * * AGENDA 1. Approval of the minutes of the July 19, 1994 meeting 2. Business arising from the Minutes a) Refined details re advertising proposal from Marc Gauthier b) Lanark Network Update c) Draft NCF Style Guide 3. Review of the Agenda 4. Executive Committee Report a) Operations Update 5. Financial Report 6. Presentation from "The Resume Bank" 7. Presentation from Menu Design Task Force (Discussion paper only, to be tabled for decision in October) 8. Deadline for Agenda Submission 9. Other Business a) Setting Date/Time for next Board Development Session b) Status of Registration as a Charity c) Planning for the next AGM d) Limiting services at peak load times 10. Next meeting 11. In Camera Session a) Report on user suspension b) Report on threatened lawsuit 12. Adjournment Window #0: Screen Choice ++> 3 1994-09-11 *************************************************** * These are draft minutes only, and are subject * * to change until approved by * * the NCF Board of Directors. * *************************************************** Minutes of the National Capital FreeNet Board of Directors Meeting held on July 19, 1994 Richmond Room - RMOC/HQ - 111 Lisgar Street Ottawa, Ontario 1. Board Members in Attendance David Sutherland Chairman Andrew Patrick First Vice President Jean Wilmot Treasurer David Blackwood Julie Chahal Brett Delmage Rosaleen Dickson Marc Labelle Richard Taylor Stephen Toy The meeting was called to order by David Sutherland. MINUTES OF JUNE 22, 1994 MEETING 2. Motion by David Blackwood, seconded by Stephen Toy that the Minutes as previously circulated, with the correction of the numbering for the notes in the appended Financial Report, be approved. Motion carried. BUSNESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES 3. Appointment of representatives to Telecommunities Canada Rosaleen Dickson, David Sutherland and Marc Labelle were elected by secret ballot by the Board members present as the NCF delegates to Telecommunities Canada. 4. Main Menu revision The main menu revision is being worked on by the Menu Design Task Force appointed by the System Design Committee. A report or recommendation from the task force will be available in the future. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORT 5. Operations Update An operations update was provided by Lisa Donnelly. Two new activities have started, and the Chairs were introduced: a) Sandra Hoffman, Chair of the Menu Design Task Force, and interim Chair of the System Design Committee, and b) Heather MacFadyen, Chair of the Documentation Sub-Committee, reporting to the Help Desk Committee. 6. Status of Charitable Organization Application There was discussion of our attempts to achieve the status of a charitable organization for tax purposes. There is some evidence that the government may be re-considering the issue of the tax status of FreeNets, and it was agreed that for now we should take no further action. FINANCIAL REPORT 7. Jean Wilmot tabled a Financial Report for the period January 1 to June 30, 1994 as previously posted. A copy of the report is attached to these minutes. ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY 8. David Loan has not been able to complete the draft Acceptable Use Policy due to personal time conflicts. Sandra Hoffman and Heather MacFadyen have offered to complete the draft AUP and to present it to a future Board meeting for review and approval. The offer was accepted by the Board. Brett Delmage agreed to obtain the completed portion of the AUP from David Loan and make it available to Sandra and Heather. DISTRIBUTION OF NCF NEWSGROUPS BEYOND NCF 9. There was a lengthy discussion of the possible distribution of NCF Newsgroups beyond NCF. Motion by David Blackwood, seconded by Marc Labelle that NCF Newsgroups be distributed beyond NCF. Motion defeated. It was noted that those individuals or groups desiring broader distribution of newsgroups on a specific topic may have that option by creating a Usenet newsgroup. The process is documented on line in the Usenet menu. ADVERTISING ON NCF 10. Gordon Pearson presented the proposal by Marc Gauthier for providing commercial advertising separate from NCF, but accessible from NCF. Motion by Richard Taylor, seconded by Marc Labelle that the proposal be accepted in principle subject to negotiation of a more refined agreement between Marc Gauthier and Gordon Pearson, with acceptance of that agreement subject to approval at a future Board meeting. Motion carried. OTHER BUSINESS 11. Accessibility of Seniors newsgroup The request by the users of the Seniors newsgroup for distribution of the newsgroup beyond NCF was considered to fall under the previous decision regarding distributing newsgroups beyond NCF, and accordingly the request was not granted. 12. Removal of Newsgroups The note from Richard Taylor regarding a process for removal of newsgroups was discussed. Motion by Richard Taylor, seconded by Brett Delmage that the Executive Committee be given the authority to remove a newsgroup from NCF if it is in violation of our Acceptable Use Policy or the User Agreement. All suspensions will be reported to the Board and such newsgroups will remain suspended unless the Board passes a motion to reinstate the newsgroup. Motion carried. 13. Transfer of NCF Information to external systems The request from Michal Zeithammel to consider copying selected NCF local/community information from menus and newsgroups to an external Unix server was discussed. It was concluded that this was closely related to the previous decision on external distribution of NCF newsgroups, and accordingly the request was not granted. 14. Name change of System Design Committee The move by the System Design Committee to rename the group as the System Management Committee was not endorsed by the Board. At the moment, the Committee is relatively dormant since its entire membership has reconstituted itself as the Menu Design Task Force until that task is completed. 15. Lanark Network Update An update on the proposed Lanark Network was not available but will be placed on a future agenda. 16. UUCP Connections David Blackwood raised the question of NCF supporting UUCP connections. In the following discussion it was concluded that the Board had previously agreed that some limited UUCP connections would be supported, and that the requested UUCP connection for Chris Lewis is within that guideline. 17. NCF Style Guide Matthew Darwin and Miranda Gray made a presentation on the new draft NCF Style Guide which is now available on-line. They are asking for review and feedback from the Board with a view towards formal Board approval of the Style Guide at some time in the future. 18. Richard Laframboise Issue This item was withdrawn from the agenda by David Sutherland on the basis that it was being handled separately and required no Board intervention at this time. 19. Registration of Libertel A request was made for an update on the registration of "Libertel", the French equivalent of FreeNet, which was approved at the April 20, 1994 Board meeting. David Sutherland confirmed that the application for registration was in process. 20. Request to appoint a Libraries Representative to NCF Board A request has been received from FORUM, a library association, that they be allowed to appoint a member to the Board of Directors of NCF. This was refused since the NCF bylaws provide only for directors who are freely elected. A letter will be sent to them indicating this, and also offering two Board members with connections to the public library community, Julie Chahal and Stephen Toy, to formally liaise with the Forum. NEXT MEETING 21. Since the next meeting according to the agreed schedule will be in conflict with the Canadian Community Networks Conference, it was agreed that the August Board meeting should be cancelled. It was confirmed that the next meeting will be on September 20, 1994 at 7:00 PM in accord with the Board's monthly meeting policy. The location is to be the Richmond Room at the RMOC/HQ. ADJOURNMENT 22. On a motion by Andrew Patrick, seconded by Richard Taylor the meeting adjourned. ------------------------------------------------------------------ NATIONAL CAPITAL FREENET Statement of Revenue, Expense and Surplus for the period Januar 1,1994 to June 30,1994 (accrual basis & unaudited) Actual Budget RECEIPTS Regular Donations 67,954 67,500 Line Sponsorships 6,660 4,200 Public Access Site Cost Recovery (1) 2,208 n/a Government Grants 25,000 25,000 Other Revenues (2) 753 n/a Promotional Item Proceeds 8 n/a Deferred Contributions (3) 4,912 n/a ________ ________ TOTAL RECEIPTS 107,495 96,700 ________ ________ SERVICE EXPENSES Phone Lines (4) 30,324 37,128 ONet fees (5) 5,445 7,223 Cost of Promotional Items 156 n/a ________ ________ TOTAL SERVICE EXPENSES 35,925 44,351 ________ ________ GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES Office Staff and Office Supplies 21,174 20,600 System Administration 24,453 29,750 Operations/Exec Director & Fundraising 7,300 13,800 Admin. & Professional Fees (6) 6,434 6,000 Public Relations & Events 584 2,000 Depreciation of Equipment 13,664 n/a ________ ________ TOTAL GENERAL & ADMIN. EXPENSES 73,609 72,150 ________ ________ _________ _________ NET SURPLUS (DEFICIT) FROM OPERATIONS (2,039) (19,801) ========= ========= NOTES: 1. Expenses for public access terminal connections to FreeNet host are recovered from the public access providers. 2. Includes '93 conference fees received in arrears, and Sutherland's speaker fee. 3. Deferred contributions relate to the urecognized portion of contributed computer and telecommunications equipment. 4. Number of Phone lines as of June 30, 1994 was 160. 5. ONet fees of $14,445 for May 1,1993 - April 30, 1994 are allocated as follows: $9,000 to fiscal year 1993 and $5,445 to fiscal year 1994. The bill for 94/95 has not yet been received. 6. Administration and Professional Fees include: - printing expense - insurance expense - bank service charges - interest expense - audit expenses - accounting services - administrative computer hardware - administrative computer software - volunteer appreciation & honorariums NATIONAL CAPITAL FREENET Balance Sheet as at June 30,1994 and December 31,1993 (accrual basis & unaudited) June 1994 December 1993 (audited) ASSETS Current Assets Cash 43,248 107,335 Current Receivables 0 3,000 Capital Assets,net of depreciation Computer Equipment 61,943 28,558 Telecommunications Equipment 77,988 53,095 Accumulated Depreciation -23,871 -10,207 ________ ________ TOTAL ASSETS 159,307 181,781 ======== ======== LIABILITIES AND EQUITY Current Liabilities Accounts Payable 258 35,181 Accrued Liabilities (note 1) 19,400 0 ________ ________ TOTAL LIABILITIES 19,658 35,181 ________ ________ EQUITY Deferred Contributions,net of amortzn 29,476 34,388 Surplus 110,173 112,212 ________ ________ TOTAL EQUITY 139,649 146,600 ________ ________ ________ ________ TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY 159,307 181,781 ======== ======== NOTES 1. Includes terminal server, June phone bill and Dir. Dev't payment Window #0: Screen Choice ++> 4 Proposal to the National Capital FreeNet from Communications MG Direct for a commercial advertising service accessible from the NCF ------------------------------------------------------------ To the Board of Directors, Communications MG Direct is a partnership recently formed by Marc E. Gauthier and Carole Mainville. It is registered in Ontario and Quebec (Quebec registration pending), with the main office located in Hull QC. Our major services will consist in providing advertising, commercial and other listings accessible to the Internet via such means as WWW and gopher servers. We would like to work in concert with FreeNets in providing a venue for commercial advertising and activities, while fostering sustainability and growth of services and of FreeNets. We propose to be associated with the National Capital Freenet as their official online advertising medium, on the following terms: o The National Capital Freenet (heretofore named NCF) refers requests for advertising and commercial listings, other than that which can be answered by NCF's own fundraising activities (eg. line sponsoring), to Communications MG Direct (heretofore named CMGD); and/or, NCF provides pointers/references to this effect at appropriate places on their system directing such inquiries to CMGD or CMGD's main menu. o This official association and referrals are done with CMGD on an exclusive basis. This exclusivity is in effect only until December 31st, 1994 (ie. for a limited period of about 5 months). o CMGD will retain 15% of revenues from sales (not including taxes) of online advertising and listings services rendered, and distribute this amount to organisations that have significantly accessed the service via Internet. The amount will be apportioned according to the volume of access to the service by the users of each eligible organisation, and by geographical area such that revenues from a given area (eg. a metropolitan area, community, etc.) are distributed solely or preferentially to organisations in that geographical area. Eligible organisations must have an agreement with CMGD to receive such benefits, and satisfy other requirements such as minimum volume of access and accountability of generated traffic. The NCF is explicitly eligible via this agreement. Since services will be initially developed and publicized in the National Capital Region, and it is expected that most access will (at least initially) come from NCF users, the retained revenues (or at least those revenues from patrons located in the National Capital Region) will go entirely to NCF until such time as the mechanisms are in place that will allow proper allocation of revenues to eliible organisations. CMGD will periodically (monthly for at least the first 5 months) remit the applicable portion of retained revenues to each eligible organisation within 30 days of the end of each period. However, if an amount so due for a particular organisation is less than CDN $10, it may retained and cumulated until such time as the total amount due to that organisation equals or exceeds CDN $10. o NCF may end this exclusivity or association at any time if it considers CMGD does not maintain an acceptable level of quality of service, or for any compelling reason (eg. legal) deems it necessary, by communicating this decision and relevant details to CMGD. Similarly, CMGD may end this agreement at any time with appropriate notice to the NCF board of directors or one of its executive officers. Specifically, Communications MG Direct would have a presence on the NCF, much like a content provider, except that only minimal information would be kept on NCF (such as a disclaimer that the service being entered is not under the control of NCF, etc.). The information and services we provide would be located on our own Internet node (via a commercial Internet provider) rather than stored on NCF's machines. They would be accessed on the NCF using the Lynx web client. Defining a specific location in the menu hierarchy may be a slightly moot point at this time, considering the menu restructuring currently in progress. However, we would like a prominent entry in the business section which is likely to be present in the menus. Meanwhile, we would suggest the following locations: o under the Communications Centre menu (go cc) o under the Network Professionals Directory menu (go net-dir) with the Communications Centre menu being our main menu entry. We also suggest our keyword entry be "go ads". (We may request a more appropriate keyword when the service is officially named.) Also, some content providers might be interested in including a pointer to us (eg. SIGs that list Internet service providers, etc.). Although we would like our menu entries activated relatively soon, a more official opening / announcement will be made once we have sufficient listings and content, perhaps a couple of months hence. As a separate proposal, we would also like to run business-oriented (commercial) newsgroups, possibly under the biz.* hierarchy (exact location to be determined). Would the NCF consider providing access to these newsgroups (or a subset of them) to their members? Given the nature of newsgroups, the most efficient way to do so would probably be simply a feed of these groups from Communication MG Direct's news server to the NCF news server. We do not support or consent to unsollicited advertising or mass emailings on the Internet, nor similarly unacceptable postings on USENET (though we recognize the latter is full of grey areas). Respectfully yours, Marc E. Gauthier Partner and CEO Communications MG Direct aj313@freenet.carleton.ca 213 place des Sorbiers, Hull QC J8Y 6P9 +1 819 777 5841 +1 613 991 6975 (wrk) +1 613 952 7151 (fax) Window #0: Screen Choice ++> 5 LANARK NETWORK UPDATE ABOUT THE UMBRELLA THE UMBRELLA BBS (Bulletin Board System) is a free, open- access, community information system. (Modem access at 257-1380 in Carleton Place, 14.4 kb, N-8-1.) The Lanark Community Action Group (LCCAG), took the initiative to improve information sharing in the County, and it in turn sponsored the Lanark County Network Project (LCNP), which is currently implementing the BBS. It is hoped that the bulletin board will improve the delivery of community programs by making it easier to share information among service groups themselves, as well as by providing the (potential) user with access to the information which is important to his/her needs. In addition the BBS will make it easy to provide and access information to individual users. Although the bulletin board is essentially non-commercial in nature (in other words: it should not be used to actually conduct business), it provides every individual and group with considerable opportunities to make their existence known and as a result produce important contacts. An extensive data bank will be an important component of the BBS. The database will contain information on all sectors of activity in the County, including tourism, agriculture, business and economic development, the environment, education, and health and social services. The Connections Project in Carleton Place has agreed to become an active partner in the Network Project, and has agreed to contribute considerably to the funding of the BBS. The Connections Project is also physically housing the computer hardware used to implement THE UMBRELLA. From the very beginning the LCNP has communicated closely with the National Capital Freenet (NCF) to avoid duplication of services and efforts in this exciting field of community communictions. We are very grateful for this connection and want to extend our thanks, in particular to Al Seaman of the NCF Board of Directors. As a result, the feasibility of linking THE UMBRELLA to the National Capital Freenet is now being studied. Your ongoing feedback is vital to ensure that your needs are met. An electronic questionnaire will be implemented soon on THE UMBRELLA. In the mean time, please send us your updated information (including address, phone no., contact names, mandate, services provided, etc.) about your group, business, or organization as soon as possible so that we can enter it in the data base. Thank you for your interest and support! Janet Findlay Jim Mountain Sietze Praamsma * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 13 September 1994 ATTENTION ALL TECHNICALLY-MINDED PEOPLE! The Lanark County Network Project is looking for people with an interest in and/or knowledge of computer networks, software and bulletin boards to sit on our new technical committee. We have been working hard to get the Network and the Bulletin Board up and running. The time has come to include more people in the management and operation of the project and to formalize our structure which will consist of a Board of Directors and three standing committees: The Ways and Means Committee (fundraising), the Community Training Committee and the Technical Committee. We anticipate that subcommittees will be formed to focus on specific areas of interest and tasks. We are also hoping to generate a list of (a) people who will act as volunteer advisors in their specialized areas and (b) people who would be willing to work on specific tasks and projects, such as designing a community database. Although there will need to be some face to face meetings, this Committee can (and likely should) meet via a forum. The Technical Committee will serve several purposes: 1. To bring technical information and expertise to the Network. 2. To solve technical problems. 3. To recommend technical solutions to the Action Group (which will become the Board). 4. To evaluate different hardware and software options. 5. To support the work of the Sysop (systems operator). 6. To represent the technical nees of the community. Some of the areas/issues we expect to address include: - how to maintain free access in a County with several dialing areas - connections with Internet, Freenet, Fidonet and other networks - software support, documentation and advice (we are using TBBS software) - user interface (what the public sees) and how this can be improved and modified - discussion of specific technical issues - the development of forums - the development of a database On September 26 (*), from 4:00 to 6:00 we will be holding a meeting for those who may be interested in assisting with the technical aspects of the Network Project. At this meeting we hope to (1) identify people who are interested in participating on a Technical Committee or subcommittee, (2) identify people with specific skills and areas of expertise, (3) briefly discuss some of the areas we have been working on to date, (4) hear what you would like to see happening, and (5) decide where to go from here. The meeting will be held n Carleton Place at Lanark Community Programs, 103 Judson St. (behind the Public Library). I have volunteered to chair the technical committee, despite my minimal technical knowledge. I can see tremendous potential in the Network Project but I think a committee composed of technically minded people is needed in order to accelerate the development of the project, to make the Network first rate and to entice a large number of users. If you have any questions, please contact me through The Umbrella by E-mail or telephone at 257-7121 or 1-800-667-2617. I hope to see a lot of people on September 26 (*). Yours truly, Lyzette Johnston Connections Project Member of Lanark County Community Action Group (*) changed from September 19 to September 26 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 September 1994 **************** A New Look ---------- In order to implement certain changes in the Umbrella, it was necessary to change the structure of the board, and with it the way the BBS looks and feels. There are quite a few changes that still need to be made in the next while please bear with me when you feel assaulted by inconsistensies in the way things work and look! With changes you usually also get some new problems, and I'm sure there will be bugs to make life difficult for you! Please let me know when you run into anything that doesn't work properly - or not at all! Of course I am not talking about the bugs that I already know about, such as helpfiles that aren't there - I'm working on them - honestly! Fidonet Echoes -------------- We'd like to find out which Fidonet Echoes you would like to see on the Umbrella. From "Miscellaneous Files" (a new item, to be reached as follows: Main Menu ==> U ==> M) you can download the file FIDONET.NA, which contains a listing of currently available echoes. Please leave a message to the sysop with your favorite echoes. The implementation of the echoes is subject to review by the LCCAG (Lanark County Community Action Committee), the group that steers the Lanark County Network Project, and the Umbrella. You can find out more about the LCCAG by going ==> A ==> M ==> D ==> O ==> L (from the Main Menu). While you are in the Community Development Menu, don't forget to check out the other organizations there (Connections and ACDC). Window #0: Screen Choice ++> 6 OPERATIONS UPDATE Meeting of the Board of Directors Tuesday, 20 September 1994 1. General Operations It was an eventful and productive summer. Thanks are in order to the Board and many volunteers who helped make the last two months successful. Despite the beginning of fall, and the return of the student population, operations are relatively smooth at moment. Coordination and exchange of information amongst the Board, staff and volunteers keeps improving. We have been holding regular staff meetings which allow for better performance and team playing. Through greater coordination we are trying to support the Board by beginning to handle some of the operational issues that have fallen on Board members in the past. * Organize speakers for requested events * Help organize and staff the monthly General Meeting * Respond to requests for in-depth information 2. Office Administration Kyla had been preparing for Friday, October 14th - her final day as a NCF employee. In addition to her regular duties, she is documenting all office procedures. This will assist us during the transition period following her departure. In order to increase effectiveness and understanding of the office activities, the office being divided into three separate divisions: The Help Line, Registrations and Administration. 3. Fund Raising The overhaul of the Funding area on NCF is now complete. It is very well done and we invite those of you who have not yet visited the area to do so! * The Auction plan is proceeding well. There are now two committees for handling it (one for the programming of the oftware and one for the logistics of the event). The auction will be announced first on the FreeNet and then to the media. * The random messages plan that Gordon had informed us of is about to begin. This will include messages to users arriving via telnet. 4. Information Providers In the past, the process for getting Information Providers on-line was very undefined. We have now designed a set of steps for handling Information Providers. The procedure and documents, though still in the final stages of refinement, have been working well. We have been receiving many reports of satisfaction from organizations going through the set-up pr ocess. The new documents and procedure should be included in the on-line IP area by the end of September. 5. Voluntee Support and Recognition As the coordination and utilization of volunteers at NCF continues to grow, it becomes increasingly clear how much our volunteers contribute to the successful functioning of the organization. In order to ensure that volunteers are satisfied and productive within their chosen tasks, we need to support and appreciate them at every opportunity. We are currently planning recognition events and implementing on-line actions that will better acknowledge volunteers and their contributions.: In addition, there are several ways the Board of Directors can continue to support volunteers: * Act as a Board Liaison to a Committee or Project * If presently a liaison, please offer as much guidance as possible to your Committee or Task Force and report their activities and concerns to the rest of the Board * If concerned about any volunteer or volunteer activity, please do not criticize them or take any action prior to talking to one of the Volunteer Coordinators * Take time to say thank-you. You are leaders and role models for NCF and your actions and attitude toward volunteers strongly effect the moral of the volunteer force * Remember that you are also volunteers and the organization appreciates all the time and energy that you contribute! -- Lisa K. Donnelly, am412@freenet.carleton.ca Interim Director of Operations & Volunteer Coordinator Window #0: Screen Choice ++> 7 NATIONAL CAPITAL FREENET Statement of Revenue, Expense and Surplus for the period January 1,1994 to August 31,1994 (accrual basis & unaudited) Actual Budget Receipts Regular Donations 90,168 90,000 Line Sponsorships & Fundraising 7,480 17,533 Public Access Site Cost Recovery (1) 2,208 n/a Government Grants 25,000 25,000 Conference & Misc. Revenues (2) 17,326 n/a Promotional Item Proceeds 8 n/a Deferred Contributions (3) 4,912 n/a _______ _______ Total Receipts 147,102 132,533 _______ _______ Service Expenses Phone Lines (4) 38,533 47,160 ONet fees (5) 5,445 9,630 Conference Expenses 14,825 n/a Cost of Promotional Items 1,264 n/a _______ _______ Total Service Expenses 60,067 56,790 _______ _______ General and Administrative Expenses Office Staff and Office Supplies 28,383 27,717 System Administration 32,785 39,667 Operations/Exec Director & Fundraising 16,986 23,000 Admin. & Professional Fees (6) 7,263 8,000 Public Access Sites 98 n/a Public Relations & Events 584 2,667 Depreciation of Equipment 13,664 n/a _______ _______ Total General & Admin Expenses 99,764 101,050 _______ _______ _______ _______ Net Surplus (Deficit) from Operations (12,728) (25,307) ======== ======== NOTES 1. Expenses for public access terminal connections to FreeNet host are recovered from the public access providers. 2. Includes '93 conference fees received in arrears, and Sutherland's speaker fee. 3. Deferred contributions related to the unrecognized portion of contributed computer and telecommunications equipment 4. No. of Phone Lines Actual: 160 Budget: 160 5. ONet fees of $14,445 incl GST for May 1, 1993 - April 30, 1994 are allocated as follows: $9,000 to fiscal year 1993, $5,445 to fiscal year1994. The bill for 94/95 has not been received 6. Admin. and Professional Fees include: - printing expenses - bank service charges - accounting & audit expenses - volunteer honorariums - board & committee admin. expenses - insurance -------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL CAPITAL FREENET Balance Sheet as at August 31,1994 and December 31,1993 (accrual basis & unaudited) August 1994 December 1993 (unaudited) (audited) Assets Current Assets Cash 21,802 107,335 Current Receivables (1) 9,750 3,000 Capital Assets,net of depreciation Computer Equipment 63,064 28,558 Telecommunications Equipment 77,988 53,095 Accumulated Depreciation -23,871 -10,207 ________ ________ Total Assets 148,733 181,781 ======== ======== Liabilities and Equity Current Liabilities Accounts Payable 874 35,181 Accrued Liabilities (2) 18,900 0 ________ ________ Total Liabilities 19,774 35,181 ________ ________ Equity Deferred Contribns,net of amortization 29,476 34,388 Surplus 99,483 112,212 ________ ________ Total Equity 128,959 146,600 ________ ________ ________ ________ Total Liabilities and Equity 148,733 181,781 ======== ======== NOTES: 1. Conference sponsorship from Industry Canada 2. Includes accruals for a terminal server and Bell Canada installation and line charges for June, July and August =================================================== Jean Wilmot, aa145@freenet.carleton.ca Board Member & Treasurer, National Capital FreeNet =================================================== Window #0: Screen Choice ++> 8 THE RESUME BANK Date: Tue, 6 Sep 1994 14:09:08 -0400 From: aa001@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Dave Sutherland) To: aa331 Subject: Agenda item for Sept. 20 I have been approached by the operators of "The Resume Bank", a local pc-based bbs designed as a service for job-hunters and potential employers. The Resume Bank is a non-profit, free service. They propose that we provide one or more lines to interconnect their system with our's to allow NCF users an opportunity to access their services conveniently. Andrew Landanowski, the project leader, wants an opportunity to speak at the Sept. meeting. -- Dave Sutherland (613-788-2600 x3701) National Capital FreeNet Ottawa Canada * * * * * * * * * * Resume Bank Proposal Submission to Ottawa FreeNet The Rsume Bank is a BBS application development dedicated to zero cost employment services. The system consists of software written and being written in C and assembly language on a 486 PC that services both the job seeker and prospective employers. The goal of the system is to maintain a sizable file of job seeker resumes so that the system can act as a one stop shop for employers who have technical positions to fill. With new features being added weekly to the system, a TBD additional goal will be to maintain a job-postings database from employers. The fledgling stand-alone BBS system to-date has been under utilized by both job seekers and employers. Some larger employers have sited reasons for not using the system that include, "Our company doesn't have any modems in the building--we connect to others via the Internet!" However, with greater connectivity through the Ottawa FreeNet to the Ottawa region, it is hoped by its volunteer developers that the system wil increase its visibility, connectivity, utilization, and the idea will catch-on. Window #0: Screen Choice ++> 9 AGENDA SUBMISSION DEADLINE Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: aa693@freenet.carleton.ca (Brett Delmage) Subject: Motion for September Board meeting Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 13:33:27 GMT I would like to move the following motion at the September Board meeting: That the Board agenda, including all motions and supporting documents and background information be posted online no later than one week prior to each board meeting, in order to allow proper preparation by Board members and greater participation by NCF members. ----------------------------------------------------- This should also reduce some of the unnecessary pressure put on Al to update the aganda menu immediately preceeding Board meetings. A seconder is required for the motion. I would also personally appreciate it if Board members would ensure that agenda items for the September meeting are provided as soon as possible so that everyone has a proper a proper opportunity to read, think and discuss them before the meeting. Thanks! -- Brett Delmage, aa693 Director, National Capital FreeNet brett@ve3pak.ocunix.on.ca voice: (613) 722-4454 fax:729-2207 The National Capital FreeNet - A bicycle for your mind --------------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: ncf.board-discussion-moderated From: aa331@freenet.carleton.ca (Al Seaman) Subject: Re: Motion for September Board meeting Date: Fri, 16 Sep 1994 19:22:09 GMT In a previous article, aa693@freenet.carleton.ca (Brett Delmage) says: >I would like to move the following motion at the September Board meeting: > >That the Board agenda, including all motions and supporting documents and >background information be posted online no later than one week prior to >each board meeting, in order to allow proper preparation by Board members >and greater participation by NCF members. > >---------------------------------------------------- I agree with the principle contained in this motion, but would like to propose some fine tuning. The issue is not so much a deadline for posting the material on-line, but the need for a deadline for submitting agenda items and the related documentation. The following motion might be more workable: That the Board agenda items, including all motions, supporting documents and background information, be submitted to the Secretary no later than one week prior to each bord meeting. The Secretary will ensure that all such agenda items and the related information is placed on line as quickly as possible after receipt in order to allow proper preparation by Board members and greater participation by NCF members. Without this change, the Secretary will be in the untenable position of trying to meet a posting deadline for material that arrives just at the deadline. -- Cheers - Al Seaman, aa331 --------------------------------------------------------------- Window #0: Scree Choice ++> 10 SCHEDULING NEXT BOARD DEVELOPMENT SESSION Date: 08 Sep 1994 16:20:07 GMT From: Jean_Wilmot@carletonbe.ottawa.on.ca (Jean Wilmot) Subject: Agenda Item for Board Meeting To: aa331@freenet.carleton.ca Hi Al! I have a short and sweet agenda item for the upcoming Board meeting: - Setting of a Date and Time for the next Board Development Session. You could allow about 5 minutes for this item so that the all board members can be brefly filled in on the outcome of the last board development session. Thanks for putting together the agenda. Jean Window #0: Screen Choice ++> 11 STATUS OF REGISTRATION AS A CHARITY Letter from Charities Division - Revenu Canada Mount Clark Yemensky Daigle Lemay Barristers and Solicitors Suite 208, 1400 Clyde Ave. Nepean, Ontario K2G 3J2 Attention: Mr. R. L. Mount Dear Mr. Mount: Re: National Capital FreeNet Incorporated Thank you for responding to our etter of August 20, 1993, in which you were informed that it appeared unlikely that National Capital FreeNet Incorporated would qualify for registration as a charity under the Income Tax Act. I regret the delay in responding. The additional information has not changed our view of the application. The organization has not been constituted to operate for the purposes qualifying as charitable as the advancement of education or as providing a benefit of a charitable nature to the community as a whole (the second and fourth heads of charitable purposes as established by Lord Macnaghten in The Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax Act y. Pemsel [1891] A. C. 531). Consequently, the organization's application is hereby refused. Advancement of Education You are aware that in order to advance education, a purpose and activity must involve training or instruction, the development of mental faculties, or the improvement of a branch of human knowledge. Not every experience of learning may be considered educational. For instance, in IRC v. Braddeley [1955] A. C. 572, the court indicated that it is not enough that something be educational in the sort of loose sense that all experience may be said to be educational. The mere obtaining and provision of information has been viewed as falling short of education. See Harman J. in Re Shaw [1957] 1 W. L. R. 429 ("merely the increase of knowledge is not in itself a charitable object unless it be combined with teaching or education"). Frther, in D'Aguiar v. IRC (Guyana) [1970] T. R. 31, the Privy Council reasoned that providing advice to the community was not charitable as advancing education (or otherwise). You reason that one of the organization's goals clearly states as a purpose of advancing education (i.e. "to encourage and promote discussion and study of public information systems; and to further the broad public information and education values of an open and democratic society.") In my view, this goal does not reveal an educational purpose, nor does it restrict the organization to educational activities. In fact, it easily empowers the organization to undertake a large variety of activities that may not necessarily be educational at law. I do not dispute that certain of the programs undertaken by the organization involve educational purposes (e.g. teaching and instructing providers of information and end-users basics and skills on computer use). However, any such educational activities form part of the organization's overall function of facilitating access to information. While it is likely that some of the material available through the network have some educational value, it is my understanding that such material is that of others; basically, the organization's members. As I see it, the organization has little, if any, involvement in the production of educational material transmitted/broadcast through the network. Rather, a significant amount of the information available via the network includes, among others, conversations, advertisements of events, general discussions and exchanges of information on various topics. Accordingly, I must conclude that the organization, as a whole, cannot be regarded as charitable within the legally established meaning of advancement of education. I appreciate that supplying materials and books to educational institutions to facilitate their objective of advancing education, might be recognized as charitable. In Attorney-General v. Marchant (1866) L. R. 3, the provision f books for a college was held charitable on the ground that a large well-assorted library in a college tends to the promotion of education. I do not see the organization's purpose as being exclusively or primarily a provider of books in electronic form. Also, it has not been established to facilitate educational institutions by establishing therein "well-assorted libraries". I believe that the organization's role of providing access to information and programs which might assist education institutions is too remote a function to recognized as charitable. Similarly, in terms of the organization's research role, provided that it was otherwise established for charitable purposes and activities, the undertaking of research in furtherance thereof would be acceptable. The fact that research is undertaken in support of a goal or purpose does not render that goal or purpose charitable. The organization's purposes are not charitable. Other Purposes Beneficial to the Community, Not Falling Under Any of the Other Three Heads of Charity Lord Macnaghton's fourth category is essentially a repository for all those purposes that while clearly charitable, did not fall neatly into the first three heads of charity. In order to qualify under this head of charity a purpose must be both beneficial to the community and within the spirit and intendment of the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth, or akin to purposes previously decided by the courts to be within the spirit and intendment of the statute. A purpose that is beneficial to the community is not necessarily a charitable purpose in the legal sense; the reverse, however, is always true; Re Compton [1945] Ch. 123. As Lord Hansworth M. R. pointed out in I. R. C. v. Roberts Marine Mansions Thrusees (Rest Home) (1927) 11 T. C. 425 (CA) at 443, it would be a "travesty of what Lord Macnaghten said if one were to interpret in that in the fourth class he meant that everything that was a benefit to the community was to be included as a charity". Your position is that the organization should be recognized as providing public amenities for the community, in that it provides a service that is the modern equivalent of a community centre. I see important differences between this sort of public facility, and the function served by the organization. Essentially, I see the organization as a telecommunication network, a transmitter of information, in much the same way as a telephone communication service, or radio or television network. In my view, thee sorts of "networks" and "transmitters" are not charitable as fourth head purposes. The provision of a public hall or community centre facility (real property) for the general use of the public for a variety of community activities (including, among other things, a physical meeting place for social gatherings and events, community meetings, health recreation and incidental sports activities) is charitable. This is so, insofar as the administration of such a facility retains sufficient control over the use to which the facility is applied. The provision of a communications network for the public for the overall purpose of transmitting and receiving information electronically (including private or personal messages via the "E-Mail" service) is not, in my view, analogous to the provision of a public hall or a community centre facility. The provision of these "E-Mail" services further demonstrates that the organization does not have sufficient control over how the facility is used. I am also aware that a public hall or community centre might incidentally public space for advertising, similar to a computer bulletin board. Again, however, I believe that the public hall and community centre facilities are responsible for ensuring that the materials placed on their public bulletin boards meet a standard for acceptable content. On the other hand, the organization's provision of a bulletin board seems to have more prominence in its overall function and it does not seem to regulate the content of messages, etc., carried on the network. Relieving the conditions associated with the ages (the term "shut-ins" could reasonably be associated with the "aged") has been recognized as charitable. Accordingly, an organization which has been established to assist the aged by alleviating their loneliness through the provision of social and recreational activities, or by addressing their health problems, could be charitable. Likewise, providing counseling to the abused is charitable. Again, I appreciate that there are components of the organization's programs which might possibly assist the aged in a charitable manner. As to counseling the abused, there is no evidence that the organization provides this service. Rather, it seems that the organization may simply provide a vehicle for group discussions on the topic of abuse. In conclusion, your presentation does not overcome my concern that the organization is not established to operate exclusively for charitable purposes. In addition, it does not devote its resources to charitable activities. There is no judicial precedent to recognize networks, electronic or otherwise, and in particular computer networks, as charitable. An applicant may appeal refusal of registration as a charity pursuant to subsections 172 (3) and 180 (1) of the Act by filing a Notice of Appeal with the Federal Court of Appeal within 30 days of the time the decision to refuse the application was mailed or otherwise communicated to the applicant or its representative. For your reference, I have attached a copy of subsections 172(3) and 180(1) of the Act and would advise that the address of the Federal Court of Appeal is: Supreme Court Building Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario Finally, I note for our letter of August 20 (copy enclosed) that we informed the organization of the possibility of qualifying for exemption from tax as a non-profit organization under paragraph 149(1)(L) of the Act. However, article 6 of its Application for Incorporation indicated that in the event of dissolution or winding-up, its remaining assets shall be distributed ratably amongst its members. While it was not addresses in our noted letter, this would be grounds for otherwise not considering the organization as a charity. As you may know, no part of a charity's income may be payable to, or otherwise available for, the personal benefit of any proprietor, member, shareholder, trustee or settler thereof. Although the organization's corporation documents povide for a non-profit clause, it would be inappropriate for us to consider registration of an organization which intents to distribute its assets among its members, either during its lifetime or upon dissolution. Further, this would likely be grounds for not considering the organization as non-profit for the purposes of paragraph 149(1) (L). While I am unable to approve the application, I hope that my comments will help you to understand our position. Yours sincerely, R.A. Davis, Director Charities Division Dave_Sutherland@carleton.ca | Dave Sutherland | Carleton University +1 613 788-2600 x3701 | Director | Ottawa, Ontario fax: 788-4448 |Computing and Communications| K1S 5B6 Window #0: Screen Choice ++> 11 STATUS OF REGISTRATION AS A CHARITY Letter from Charities Division - Revenu Canada Mount Clark Yemensky Daigle Lemay Barristers and Solicitors Suite 208, 1400 Clyde Ave. Nepean, Ontario K2G 3J2 Attention: Mr. R. L. Mount Dear Mr. Mount: Re: National Capital FreeNet Incorporated Thank you for responding to our letter of August 20, 1993, in which you were informed that it appeared unlikely that National Capital FreeNet Incorporated would qualify for registration as a charity under the Income Tax Act. I regret the delay in responding. The additional information has not changed our view of the application. The organization has not been constituted to operate for the purposes qualifying as charitable as the advancement of education or as providing a benefit of a charitable nature to the community as a whole (the second and fourth heads of charitable purposes as established by Lord Macnaghten in The Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax Act y. Pemsel [1891] A. C. 531). Consequently, the organization's application is hereby refused. Advancement of Education You are aware that in order to advance education, a purpose and activity must involve training or instruction, the development of mental faculties, or the improvement of a branch of human knowledge. Not every experience of learning may be considered educational. For instance, in IRC v. Braddeley [1955] A. C. 572, the court indicated that it is not enough that something be educational in the sort of loose sense that all experience may be said to be educational. The mere obtaining and provision of information has been viewed as falling short of education. See Harman J. in Re Shaw [1957] 1 W. L. R. 429 ("merely the increase of knowledge is not in itself a charitable object unless it be combined with teaching or education"). Further, in D'Aguiar v. IRC (Guyana) [1970] T. R. 31, the Privy Council reasoned that providing advice to the community was not charitable as advancing education (or otherwise). You reason that one of the organization's goals clearly states as a purpose of advancing education (i.e. "to encourage and promote discussion and study of public information systems; and to further the broad public information and education values of an open and democratic society.") In my view, this goal does not reveal an educational purpose, nor does it restrict the organization to educational activities. In fact, it easily empowers the organization to undertake a large variety of activities that may not necessarily be educational at law. I do not dispute that certain of the programs undertaken by the organization involve educational purposes (e.g. teaching and instructing providers of informaton and end-users basics and skills on computer use). However, any such educational activities form part of the organization's overall function of facilitating access to information. While it is likely that some of the material available through the network have some educational value, it is my understanding that such material is that of others; basically, the organization's members. As I see it, the organization has little, if any, involvement in the production of educational material transmitted/broadcast through the network. Rather, a significant amount of the information available via the network includes, among others, conversations, advertisements of events, general discussions and exchanges of information on various topics. Accordingly, I must conclude that the organization, as a whole, cannot be regarded as charitable within the legally established meaning of advancement of education. I appreciate that supplying materials and books to educational institutions to facilitate their objective of advancing education, might be recognized as charitable. In Attorney-General v. Marchant (1866) L. R. 3, the provision of books for a college was held charitable on the ground that a large well-assorted library in a college tends to the promotion of education. I do not see the organization's purpose as being exclusively or primarily a provider of books in electronic form. Also, it has not been established to facilitate educational institutions by establishing therein "well-assorted libraries". I believe that the organization's role of providing access to information and programs which might assist education institutions is too remote a function to recognized as charitable. Similarly, in terms of the organization's research role, provided that it was otherwise established for charitable purposes and activities, the undertaking of research in furtherance thereof would be acceptable. The fact that research is undertaken in support of a goal or purpose does not render that goal or purpose charitable. The organization's purposes are not charitable. Other Purposes Beneficial to the Community, Not Falling Under Any of the Other Three Heads of Charity Lord Macnaghton's fourth category is essentially a repository for all those purposes that while clearly charitable, did not fall neatly into the first three heads of charity. In order to qualify under this head of charity a purpose must be both beneficial to the community and within the spirit and intendment of the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth, or akin to purposes previously decided by the courts to be within the spirit and intendment of the statute. A purpose that is beneficial to the community is not necessarily a charitable purpose in the legal sense; the reverse, however, is always true; Re Compton [1945] Ch. 123. As Lord Hansworth M. R. pointed out in I. R. C. v. Roberts Marine Mansions Thrusees (Rest Home) (1927) 11 T. C. 425 (CA) at 443, it would be a "travesty of what Lord Macnaghten said if one were to interpret in that in the fourth class he meant that everything that was a benefit to the community was to be included as a charity". Your position is that the organization should be recognized as providing public amenities for the community, in that it provides a service that is the modern equivalent of a community centre. I see important differences between this sort of public facility, and the function served by the organization. Essentially, I see the organization as a telecommunication network, a transmitter of information, in much the same way as a telephone communication service, or radio or television network. In my view, these sorts of "networks" and "transmitters" are not charitable as fourth head purposes. The provision of a public hall or community centre facility (real property) for the general use of the public for a variety of community activities (including, among other things, a physical meeting place for social gatherings and events, community meetings, health recreation and incidental sports activities) is charitable. This is so, insofar as the administration of such a facility retains sufficient control over the use to which the facility is applied. The provision of a communications network for the public for the overall purpose of transmitting and receiving information electronically (including private or personal messages via the "E-Mail" service) is not, in my view, analogous to the provision of a public hall or a community centre facility. The provision of these "E-Mail" services further demonstrates that the organization does not have sufficient control over how the facility is used. I am also aware that a public hall or community centre might incidentally public space for advertising, similar to a computer bulletin board. Again, however, I believe that the public hall and community centre facilities are responsible for ensuring that the materials placed on their public bulletin boards meet a standard for acceptable content. On the other hand, the organization's provision of a bulletin board seems to have more prominence in its overall function and it does not seem to regulate the content of messages, etc., carried on the network. Relieving the conditions associated with the ages (the term "shut-ins" could reasonably be associated with the "aged") has been recognized as charitable. Accordingly, an organization which has been established to assist the aged by alleviating their loneliness through the provision of social and recreational activities, or by addressing their health problems, could be charitable. Likewise, providing counseling to the abused is charitable. Again, I appreciate that there are components of the organization's programs which might possibly assist the aged in a charitable manner. As to counseling the abused, there is no evidence that the organization provides this service. Rather, it seems that the organization may simply provide a vehicle for group discussions on the topic of abuse. 12 In conclusion, your presentation does not overcome my concern that the organization is not established to operate exclusively for charitable purposes. In addition, it does not devote its resources to charitable activities. There is no judicial precedent to recognize networks, electronic or otherwise, and in particular computer networks, as charitable. An applicant may appeal refusal of registration as a charity pursuant to subsections 172 (3) and 180 (1) of the Act by filing a Notice of Appeal with th Federal Court of Appeal within 30 days of the time the decision to refuse the application was mailed or otherwise communicated to the applicant or its representative. For your reference, I have attached a copy of subsections 172(3) and 180(1) of the Act and would advise that the address of the Federal Court of Appeal is: Supreme Court Building Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario Finally, I note for our letter of August 20 (copy enclosed) that we informed the organization of the possibility of qualifying for exemption from tax as a non-profit organization under paragraph 149(1)(L) of the Act. However, article 6 of its Application for Incorporation indicated that in the event of dissolution or winding-up, its remaining assets shall be distributed ratably amongst its members. While it was not addresses in our noted letter, this would be grounds for otherwise not considering the organization as a charity. As you may know, no part of a charity's income may be payable to, or othrwise available for, the personal benefit of any proprietor, member, shareholder, trustee or settler thereof. Although the organization's corporation documents provide for a non-profit clause, it would be inappropriate for us to consider registration of an organization which intents to distribute its assets among its members, either during its lifetime or upon dissolution. Further, this would likely be grounds for not considering the organization as non-profit for the purposes of paragraph 149(1) (L). While I am unable to approve the application, I hope that my comments will help you to understand our position. Yours sincerely, R.A. Davis, Director Charities Division Dave_Sutherland@carleton.ca | Dave Sutherland | Carleton University +1 613 788-2600 x3701 | Director | Ottawa, Ontario fax: 788-4448 |Computing and Communications| K1S 5B6 Window #0: Screen Choice ++> LIMITING SERVICES AT PEAK LOAD TIMES The load on the NCF machines is degrading the service we provide to our users and information providers. Rather than have all services become unusable in an uncontrolled manner, NCF chooses to limit access to less-important services during times of high system load, to preserve access to important services. The importance of a service is measured by its relevance to the Mission of NCF. Examples of services that might be reduced during times of high load are: access to the system by guests access to the system by distant network users access to the system by all network users (non-modem users) file downloads usenet news internet access chat services It is desirable that access to relevant services should be preserved at the expense of less relevant services, where and when not enough resources are available to provide everything. Discussion leading to reasonable and workable guidelines is needed. Window #0: Screen Choice ++> 13 That choice is not on this menu. Window #0: Screen Choice ++>