Hello,
I'll comment as a representative of the Mauritius Internet Users.
At 11:57 14-03-2015, Benoit Gentil wrote:
>I'm also adding Mr Rabbani to the discussion as apparently he was
>not in copy to this email.
Thanks for adding the other .mu registrars to the discussion.
>>On 14/03/2015 22:01, Stephanie Lan wrote:
>>>
>>>1) Technically, we have not seen a problem with .mu. At the end of
>>>the day, our main concern is technical stability. What is
>>>important for us (regarding .mu domains) is to be able to provide
>>>the service to our customers:
>>>- register .mu domain names on their behalf
>>>- renew, update those domain names
>>>- attend to transfer requests etc
>>>We are able to do all the above and do not encounter technical
>>>issues with .mu.
>>>
>>>With the nature of our business, we need the best and most stable
>>>internet connection. We have tried 4 of the major internet
>>>providers and were very disappointed with their connection speed
>>>and stability. If we have to find an issue with running a
>>>registrar, it's with the internet connection rather than with the .mu itself.
The feedback I have received (unrelated to .mu issues) from some
businesses is that it is difficult to find an internet service
provider which offers a stable internet connection. I suggest
keeping this issue separate from the .mu issues unless it is a
technical issue which affects .mu.
>>>2) Comments on what other Registrars have already mentioned:
>>>
>>>a) Cost $50
>>>$50 is quite expensive compared to a .com domain. We've registered
>>>.com domains for customers but many customers would still prefer
>>>.mu domains because of the choice of names they have. The .com
>>>domains are normally very restricted and longer. It is the
>>>customer's choice afterall. We also had a few customers
>>>registering .mg (Madagascar) at $120 and one customer wanting to
>>>register .nf (Norfolk Island). The .nf domain was at $1200 . While
>>>the .mu domain is not cheap, it's still more affordable than some others.
>>>For small business owners in Mauritius, a cheaper option will
>>>certainly be welcome.
In my opinion a comparison with ccTLDs such as .mg is useful if that
is standard which Mauritius would like to reach. The registration
agreement for .mg is at
http://www.nic.mg/documents/reg_agreement.htm The document is not
available. I would recommend against using that ccTLD as a standard.
>>>b) Transfers
>>>My experience is that transfers can be a very short OR a very long process.
>>>This depends on whether the customer has the authorisation code or
>>>not. With an authorisation code, we can request a transfer
>>>instantly. If a staff (registrant) does not have access to his
>>>company's domain name (e.g. a previous staff registered a domain
>>>and did not update the contact details), yes this process can be
>>>lengthy (1-2 weeks depending on how fast they can prove their
>>>current Registrar that they are the actual owner of the domain
>>>name). This does NOT imply there is a problem with .mu.
>>>
>>>Pricewise, I agree that $50 transfer fee can be reduced.
I would list this as a commercial issue.
>>>c) Grace Period
>>>We have noticed that the grace period is currently 1 day (?).
>>>Domains that are expired get suspended the next day. We were able
>>>to renew some domain names without any charge on the same day
>>>because some customers have paid immediately. But if the domain is
>>>not renewed, it is deleted within 1 day. We find that 1 day is
>>>very short for customers to organise payment and would like a
>>>longer grace period (1-2 weeks). A lot of customers do not renew
>>>their domain name on time (they wait until last minute and other
>>>priorities come up) or they simply did not receive the Registry's
>>>"about to expire" notices.
>>>A longer grace period will save a lot of frustrations/griefs.
This could be listed as a policy issue.
>>>d) nic.mu website
>>>The "problem" listed by Neetish was not a problem with .mu
>>>registry but with their website.
>>>Last year, there was 1 instance where the registry's site
>>>(registrars' access) was down for several hours. This did not
>>>affect any of our customers' domains.
>>>We were unable to renew domains during that time too and renewed
>>>after the site was back. If any of our customers' domains were to
>>>expire on that day, we would have sent a request to the Registry
>>>to renew our domains on time since their site was down.
nic.mu was unreachable in February and June and 2014 and February
2015. The outage which occurred in June 2014 lasted over two days.
>>>.mu, Is therefore a problem? I also agree that there is not an
>>>issue with .mu, just a few recommendations to improve.
>>>These recommendations will help run our registrar. Some of the
>>>"problems" listed by other Registrars are not actually problems
>>>with the .mu registry but wishes for changes to the .mu domain
>>>pricing and grace period.
Thank you for the feedback. I read the above views as meaning that
there isn't any problem with .mu.
I'll wait until 16 March to send a summary of the feedback to all the
.mu registrars which responded to my message.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Received on Sun Mar 15 2015 - 08:55:44 PST