Brismesh Inc. General Meeting 22 Jan 2004

Venue

61 Mary Street

Attendees

David Leonard (Secretary), Anna Gerber (President, Chair), Garry Ford, Gary Crothers, Brett Maxfield, Tony Miles, Paul James (Vice-president), Peter Clarke, Michael Oliver (Treasurer), James Iseppi (MC member), Mark Allen, Ian Lister, David Lodeiro, Victor Rodriguez, Barrie Hill, Bradley Schatz

Minutes

Meeting opened at 6.48pm.

  1. Apologies:

    Kevin Fleming, Alan Wills, Andrew Crouch, Scott Lamshed, Rod Beech.

    Apologies accepted.

  2. Report from Management Committee (Paul James)

  3. Correspondence (David Leonard)

  4. Report from IPv6 working group (Ian Lister)

    Our working group met in December. It consisted of Ian Lister, Brett Maxfield, David Leonard and Tony Miles. The meeting was about getting up to speed. Ian had previously circulated key RFCs. We discussed our options regarding addressing, but we don't want to be rushing into producing a standard until it is relevant. We have been looking at 6to4 addresses [derived from existing RFC1918 addresses]. They are attractive for the short term because they have no administrative overhead and everyone will get a /48 subnet. One major problem is that the OS of choice of some of the working group (OpenBSD) does not support 6to4 [for security reasons]. We have more investigations to go on 6to4 and IPv6. It is good for automatic tunnels, and manual tunnels. Both use protocol 41. David and Ian are currently testing IPv6 tunnels over the internet (via ipv6.net.au). Our plan is to keep testing and documenting to make it easier for other members to come up to speed with it quickly.

  5. Appointment of an auditor (David Leonard)

    We are obliged under the Associations Act, as well as our own Rules (s22.3) to appoint an auditor at our first general meeting. David has contacted a couple of auditors from the yellow pages. The quoted costs ranged from $300 to $800. David is appealing to members to help find an auditor who is willing to work pro bono or for something like a carton of beer.

    Garry Ford opined that we will be hard pressed to get anyone to do it for free. Someone asked what the requirements are for being an auditor. Gary Crothers mentioned that QDG has a member- accountant (CPA) who does their books, but he is loathe to ask him to burden himself with more unpaid work. Anna said she knew some accounting students. Ian Lister said he will ask his friend who is an auditor at a big accounting firm if they are able to help.

    Garry Ford said that getting a free audit will become more of a problem if we ever get big government grants. Paul James suggested that in that case part of the grant will go towards a real auditor.

    Michael Oliver quoted from a section of the Corporations Act about the requirements of an auditor. Namely that they be a CPA, or have studied and passed accounting with an auditing component for 3 years.

    MOTION: That the Management Committee find an auditor and defer the appointment of an auditor to the next general meeting. (Moved: David Leonard. Seconded: Anna Gerber)

    There was discussion if this motion satisfies our obligations under the act and rule 22.3. There was general but dubious consensus on this.

    CARRIED (no objections)

  6. Report on the BCC site application (Mark Allen)

    Mark has completed writing the application. He has some more paperwork to fill out for the council. This should be complete by the next meeting. Mark asked for someone with a colour laser printer. David Leonard indicated he had access to a colour printer.

    Michael Oliver remarked that we cannot submit an application until we have a PLI certificate. Paul James suggested that a current certificate [i.e. the application?] would suffice. Garry Ford asked if the premium for the insurance will rise with the sites that are going up as that will increase the risk. Paul James said that he did not think that was the case. Gary Crothers confirmed that QDG (which is also insured by CGU) has not had their premiums rise.

    The floor was opened to any further business.

  7. Policy on non-members attending meeetings (David Leonard)

    David was asked by Barrie Hill, a non-member if he could attend the meeting. Several other non-members (including non-financial members) were present at the meeting too, but the real query was do we formalise how open our meetings are.

    MOTION: The general Public are welcome to attend our meetings (Moved: David Leonard. Seconded Anna Gerber)

    James Iseppi remarked that allowing the press to attend our meetings could be bad.

    Michael Oliver asked if 'meetings' included the management committee meetings.

    AMMENDMENT: Replace 'our meetings' with 'our general meetings' (Moved: Michael Oliver. Seconded David Leonard)

    CARRIED (no objections)

    CARRIED AS AMMENDED (no objections)

  8. Is Brismesh a charity? (Paul James)

    Paul James said that he and David Leonard had been having a discussion whether Brismesh was a charity or a business.

    Michael Oliver said that we have no chance of getting charity status, and that we are a not-for-profit business.

    Garry Ford said that it is possible for us to get an 'educational body' classification. Michael Oliver replied that there is a 'twist' in getting such a classification; it has 'side issues', one of which is that we would have to scrap membership fees. Educational bodies can also claim charity status only on building funds. Garry Ford agreed that such building funds attract a tax deduction. Paul James remarked that an educational body classification may open doors for Brismesh.

    Paul James brought the topic back into focus by saying that he wanted a clear picture from the members of our direction now that we are charging membership fees. He said that because Brismesh has limited resources we should focus our activity on our member base [instead of on public good exercises].

    Ian Lister said that the question of direction will be an ongoing question as membership and management change. Anna Gerber said that individual member's motivations will be different from wanting to connect to a specific person, or wanting to connect to any and everyone.

    Garry Ford said that current ongoing connection costs is the reason Brismesh appeals to people [as opposed to existing methods of connections a.k.a. 'Telstra tax'].

    David Leonard indicated that the original inception of Brisbane Mesh was intended to be a public good infrastructure exercise, but that the hurdles of carrier licencing, and also getting good access to sites such as the BCC reservoirs meant that we had to incorporate.

    Paul James said that our aim is not to become just an ISP and sell bandwidth to our members, and that membership fees are a way forward to achieve our goals. He pointed out that in the past four years without fees no achievements had been made. Anna Gerber said that technology was more expensive previously.

    Brett Maxfield said that the most important thing was the shared infrastructure, which requires PLI [and that was where the money should go.]

    Bradley Schatz asked if a purpose of the organization had been tabled yet. Anna Gerber responded that we have a section in our rules outlining the Objects of the association. Garry Ford said that the Objects were written to get a foothold on the educational aspect, and that is why they're so open to interpretation.

    Michael Oliver said that this will be an ongoing changing thing. Paul James said that getting some standpoint agreed to now would be good.

    David Leonard asked if the question could be better rephrased as 'what is our relationship to the public?' Anna Gerber said that we will be involved in educating the public. Brett Maxfield said that we will only be providing network access to our members though. Anna Gerber said that non-financial members should be able to connect. Garry Ford said that as long as they appear somewhere [in the interpretation of member] it is OK.

    Paul James said that we must be careful of members letting non-members connect to the network, as the non-members could transitively connect to other non-members and then we would 'have a riot on our hands'.

    Anna Gerber said that members have an advantage of being able to take part in these meetings and decide where the big sites will be.

    Paul James refocused the discussion again and said that David saw Brismesh as a charity. David clarified this by saying that he saw Brismesh has a strong charitable aspect. Ian Lister rephrased this as it working for the public good. Paul James said that it is a matter of getting the right balance. Garry Ford said that the BCC will want to see a charitable aspect in our association.

    Bradley Schatz asked what the reasons were for not allowing the public to connect to the network. Garry Ford replied that we would need a carrier licence under the Telecommunications Act. There was general discussion about how this was covered by our definition of Ordinary Member in the rules, and what was meant by Associate member.

    MOTION: That we clearly define Associate member (s5.1(c)) in our By-Laws. (Moved: David Leonard. Seconded: Michael Oliver)

    CARRIED (no objections)

    Garry Ford suggested that the definition be substantially similar to the Ordinary Member definition in s5.1(a). There was a query why from Paul James. Garry replied that it was to use the same way that APANA used to get around an ACA interpretation.

    David Leonard asked if associate member was related to Ian Lister's previous suggestion of 'night club'-style membership. Paul James said such a scheme would probably be too risky with respect to the ACA. Garry Ford pointed out that APANA had a similar scheme (trial membership) which was implemented as an online web form. They removed it because the ACA told them they treated such trial members as third parties.

    Peter Clarke said that he understood that his brother would be able to use the Brismesh network as he is covered under the definition of Ordinary member, but asked if his friends that came over for a LAN party would also be covered in the same way. Garry Ford replied that they would be.

  9. Other sites to connect (Mark Allen)

    Mark enquired if there were other sites around Brisbane that should be considered for proposals to council for linking up. There was some general discussion.

  10. Next meeting (Anna Gerber)

    There was some discussion about the rotating day-of-the week for meetings. It was generally agreed that Friday evenings were to be exempted. Some people said that inner-city venues were much appreciated.

    Because the next day on the rotation was going to be a Saturday, there was dicsussion about it being late afternoon, and possibly involving a BBQ.

    MOTION: That the next general meeting of Brismesh be held on Saturday 28 Feb 2004, at 4pm, at a venue to be announced. (Moved: David Leonard. Seconded Paul James.)

    CARRIED (no objections)

There being no further business, the meeting was closed at 7.36pm


Brismesh Inc. Management Committee Meeting 22 Jan 2004

Present: David Leonard, Anna Gerber, Paul James, Michael Oliver, James Iseppi

Opened at 7.40pm

  1. Transfering brismesh.org domain management to mydomain.com
    Anna and David will work on this on Saturday afternoon. We should also make special email aliases etc. then.
  2. Accepting new members
    Michael Oliver was busy writing out receipts. Anna transferred all the paperwork to David as the new secretary. David to collate all the membership details. Newly accepted members (possibly non-financial): David to look at non-financial members on the list and contact them directly.

Closed at 8pm