On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 02:36:42AM -0700, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I attended a meeting of the .mu Select Committee this morning. I
> did a presentation about .mu (
> http://www.elandsys.com/~sm/mu-cctld-problems.pdf ). It was
> followed by a discussion about whether there was a problem with .mu.
> All the members present agreed that there was a problem. The only
> alternative is a re-delegation of the .mu ccTLD. There is work to
> be done on the policy, commercial and technical components to ensure
> that .mu works correctly.
>
> There was a suggestion that the technical operations for .mu be run
> by the existing .mu ccTLD. I preferred not to discuss about that as
> I was chairing the meeting. In my opinion there should be an an
> acceptable level of risk for organizations that own, operate, or
> maintain .mu domain names. The representative from a bank pointed
> out that if .mu could be switched off nobody would be able to do
> anything about it. He also mentioned that there was a single point
> of failure. I don't think that the current level of risk is
> acceptable.
I am against the current operator running the .mu for technical operations.
The lack of technical skills, and professionalism was shown multiple times !
>
> I mentioned that there was an attempt in 2009 to reach an agreement
> with the existing .mu ccTLD. It was a failure. Trying the same
> thing and expecting different is a naive approach. I would advise
> against that.
>
> There has been very little comments about the messages I sent about
> .mu. I suggest that you start asking questions if you have any
> interest on .mu. If you do not do that I will point it out when you
> mention .mu problems in future.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 17 2015 - 10:03:43 PST