ARCHIVED - Telecom Commission Letter addressed to various parties interested in the clarification of submission made by the “pre-incorporation Interim Board of Canadian Administrator of VRS (CAV)” as part of the proceeding Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2014-188

Ottawa, 17 October 2014

File no.: 8665-C12-201403287

BY EMAIL

Mr. Frank Folino cad@cad.ca
Mr. Jonathan Daniels bell.regulatory@bell.ca
Mr. Gary Birch garyb@neilsquire.ca

RE: Clarification of submission made by the “pre-incorporation Interim Board of Canadian Administrator of VRS (CAV)” as part of the proceeding Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2014-188

Dear Sirs:

The Commission received your proposal submitted as part of the process initiated by Telecom Notice of Consultation CRTC 2014-188 (TNC 2014-188). One document was submitted on 25 July 2014 and additional supporting documentation was received on
26 August 2014. Additionally, a response to Commission staff’s request for information was received on 15 September 2014.

Commission staff requests responses to the questions below by 24 October 2014.

1. Refer to your 15 September response to question 4 with respect to independent Directors. Confirm whether or not subsection 28(b) of the proposed By-law is in fact an eligibility criterion as introduced earlier in section 28. That is, indicate whether subsection 28(b)
1. implies that a candidate for Independent Director who is reasonably perceived to be biased is not eligible for this position; or
2. implies that an elected Independent Director shall not be considered to be biased because of current or previous experience or relationships.

Please propose revised text to better reflect the intent of subsection 28(b).

1. Refer to your 15 September response to question 11. Your response indicates that a TSP must be willing to disclose its contribution status^{Footnote 1}, which is confidential information, not only to the CAV but to any stakeholder of the CAV for it to register as a TSP stakeholder of the CAV.
1. Commission staff interprets this to mean that any stakeholder of the CAV, including non-TSP stakeholders, can request the TSP stakeholder list. Justify why this confidential information is required by stakeholders of the CAV, particularly those that are not TSP stakeholders.
2. Commission staff presents two alternate methods of handling confidential stakeholder information below:

Alternative # 1:  An independent third party is hired by the CAV to manage the registration of TSP stakeholders and ensure proper treatment of confidential information.  This third party would create a confidential TSP stakeholder registration list and would also manage the process for the election of Members in a manner which maintains the confidentiality of the TSP stakeholder registration list. However, any TSP stakeholder that wishes to be put forward as a candidate for election as a CAV Member must then agree to disclose that it is a required contributor.

Alternative # 2: Any TSP, regardless of its contribution status, is eligible to register as a TSP stakeholder of the CAV. However only those TSPs who contribute to the National Contribution Fund (NCF) are eligible to be elected as a Member of the CAV and must agree to disclose that it is a required contributor.  

Indicate, providing your rationale,

1. whether or not alternative #1 would be appropriate for the CAV;
2. whether or not alternative #2 would be appropriate for the CAV; 
3. which of these two alternatives would be more appropriate for the CAV; and
4. whether or not the alternative selected in (iii) would be preferable to the one suggested in your 15 Sept response to question 11.

Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Kay Saicheua at
819-934-1358 or by email at kay.saicheua@crtc.gc.ca.

Yours truly,

 [Original signed]

Nanao Kachi
Director, Social and Consumer Policy
Consumer Affairs and Strategic Policy

c.c.:  kay.saicheua@crtc.gc.ca

Date modified:

2014-10-23