My latest issue with .MU was the sudden price increase in
registration/renewal fees.
I want to implement DNSSEC on my .MU domains and those of my clients and I
cannot do it because .MU is not signed and there is no roadmap on whether
.MU is going to be signed or not. Questions to the registry on the subject
of DNSSEC have not been answered. This is presently my most important issue
on the subject.
The other thing which might become an issue some day is that the venue for
legal matters related to .MU is in England.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:21 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+mu_at_elandsys.com> wrote:
> Hi Ish,
> At 09:00 18-03-2015, Ish Sookun wrote:
>
>> Last year, you and I participated in a workshop where two "foreign
>> experts" were paid to draft an Open Source Policy for Mauritius. Was there
>> anything in the draft that could not have been done by Mauritians?
>>
>
> I would like to thank you once again for helping me attend the workshop.
> I commented extensively about that draft policy. Logan is an OpenBSD
> developer. He must have an understanding of open source as OpenBSD would
> not take just anyone as a developer. I didn't see anything in that draft
> policy which could not have been done by people in Mauritius.
>
> I think the myth of believing some things can "only" be solved by foreign
>> expertise is strongly bugged in some minds.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> If the Multi-stakeholder forum accepts this proposal, then I shall no
>> more comment or collaborate on any topic related to .mu. I will NEVER buy a
>> .mu and I will neither ever encourage someone to do so. If the Government
>> opts to spend ~13 million rupees as described in the proposal (which
>> neither assures the problem will be solved) then maybe citizens who spare
>> their time and energy commenting and sharing ideas/solutions for free
>> should stop doing so.
>>
>
> The "Multi-stakeholder Forum" approach was recommended by a person who is
> currently an ICANN Vice-President. The problem is that some people in
> Mauritius see everything which a person with an ICANN title says as expert
> advice. Anyone (outside Mauritius) with some internet experience knows
> that it is definitely not where one should expect advice which will assure
> that the problem will be solved.
>
> As a representative of the Mauritius Internet Users I strongly opposed
> spending 13 million rupees on .mu. I am sure that you would find some time
> to come to the microphone and ask me questions about such a huge amount of
> money if I supported such a decision. :-)
>
> I commented about the technical setup as I was concerned about the huge
> amount of money estimated for .mu. Should I propose a better technical
> setup? I could make a few suggestions. Should I write a formal proposal
> for free because I opposed the technical setup which is currently proposed?
>
> The people who decided to sollicit foreign expertise for the .mu problem
>> should plainly say they don't understand DNS. We can understand that.
>> Mauritius spending Rs 13 M on this issue will make us (IT Professionals at
>> every level) look ridiculous and I am once again strongly opposing this. We
>> have already been turned into a joke with the various .mu mishaps, along
>> with the Government Web Portal saga of last year. Can the industry afford
>> more humiliation?
>>
>
> I agree that Mauritius will look ridiculous if it were to spend 13 million
> on this issue. This would be yet another humiliation. I don't think that
> we can afford that.
>
> I recall having mentioned in a previous email that if the current
>> registry says the .mu domain name costs higher because of hosting,
>> management & all, then something is wrong somewhere.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> There is a .mu Select Committee which is working on a proposal for .mu.
> The .mu Select Committee will deliver a proposal to the MultiStakeholder
> Forum. There will most likely be a public consultation.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
>
Received on Wed Mar 18 2015 - 18:54:04 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Wed Mar 18 2015 - 19:00:01 PST