Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. Archived Decisions, Notices and Orders (DNOs) remain in effect except to the extent they are amended or reversed by the Commission, a court, or the government. The text of archived information has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Changes to DNOs are published as “dashes” to the original DNO number. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats by contacting us.
Sent by email: email@example.com
Ottawa, 12 January 2009
To: Lana Kerzner, Barrister and Solicitor, ARCH Disability Law Centre
Phylis Gordon, Barrister and Solicitor, Outside Counsel, ARCH Disability Law Centre
Re: Request from ARCH Disability Law Centre ( ARCH ) for cost awards associated with additional research and report by the Adaptive Technology Resource Centre ( ATRC ) - Unresolved issues related to the accessibility of telecommunications and broadcasting services for persons with disabilities , Broadcasting Notices of Public Hearing CRTC 2008-8 and 2008-8-1 and Telecom Public Notices CRTC 2008-8 and 2008-8-1, 10 June 2008 and 24 July 2008 (Public Notice 2008-8)
Dear Ms. Kerzner and Ms. Gordon:
This is further to ARCH's letter of 15 December 2008 to the CRTC in which ARCH addresses the Commission's 27 November 2008 interrogatory related to the identification of fully accessible devices or softwares that could make devices fully accessible.
In its letter, ARCH indicates that it does not have the in-house expertise required to provide the technological details sought by the Commission. Accordingly, ARCH consulted with the ATRC because of its expertise in assistive technologies. In addition to providing some preliminary information complied by the ATRC, ARCH indicates that ATRC could extend its research and provide a report on the matter by 30 January 2009.
The Commission notes that the interrogatory indicates that groups representing persons with disabilities were to provide information on devices of which they are currently aware. The interrogatory was not intended to require groups to conduct extensive research.
In light of the above, the Commission considers that the additional research and report that ARCH suggests be conducted by ATRC is not needed for the record of this proceeding.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Robert. A. Morin