Re: .mu proposed model

From: S Moonesamy <sm+mu_at_elandsys.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 10:38:19 -0700

Hi Ish, Logan,
At 09:57 25-03-2015, Ish Sookun wrote:
>The cost breakdown was for .mu ccTLD operational purposes. The .mu
>Council is more about policy making. Thus, taking into consideration
>the participation of the ICT Ministry (through its nominated
>member), I think the council should rather be Government funded.

Having a government funded body changes the neutral status of the
proposed body. After reading the above and the draft again I noticed
that the draft does not propose having a neutral non-profit as the
ccTLD manager.

At the beginning of this month you commented that you would not agree
to .mu being managed by a company similar to MCML. In the above you
agreed to .mu being managed by the government.

At 10:26 25-03-2015, Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
>A non-profit organization like AFRINIC. The board members aren't paid.
>However, I think that eventually, we can provide a small allowance to
>cover the cost of transport and food for each board meeting.
>
>The board's work consists mostly of strategic planning. It should not
>be involved in day to day running. That's why we appoint a CEO.
>
>Also, in this particular case, we have been trying to scale down costs.

We are in a region with the highest price for number resources. I
don't think that AfriNIC is a good example. I would like examples of
organisations which are local.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Received on Wed Mar 25 2015 - 17:38:46 PST