Re: .mu proposed model

From: S Moonesamy <sm+mu_at_elandsys.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 01:34:09 -0700

Hello,

I'll comment about the .mu proposed model.

The idea is to have a non-profit organisation responsible for
.mu. That organisation should be neutral. The draft for the
proposed model does not mention non-profit or neutral.

Section 2.2 and Section 2.3 are about the purpose and activities of
the .mu Council. I suggest that those sections should be rewritten
to describe the non-profit structure which will be responsible for .mu.

   "Establishing standards for performance monitoring of the ccTLD manager,
    and the registry"

I would prefer not to have a .mu Council in addition to an
organisation operating the registry as it is better to have a simple
structure for a small ccTLD.

   "Approving policy changes relating to the .mu ccTLD"

I don't think that the organisation should be approving policy
changes for the .mu ccTLD. My preference is to separate policy and
operation so that the organisation is not allowed to reject policies
which it does not agree to.

   "Clearly there is an obligation for competent management of the ccTLD.
    Also there must be opportunities for consultation and input from the
    local internet community on management issues."

We are agreeing to an organisation which will be in control of the
.mu ccTLD. That organisation can ignore us. I suggest looking into
having mechanisms which will work in practice. We should assume that
there will be management issues and that these issues will be
addressed in a way which serves the interest of the local internet
community and not the interests of a few entities in Mauritius.

I do not like the concept of stakeholder representation. The
Mauritius Internet Users was not represented on the Multi-Stakeholder
Forum. It will also not be represented in the proposed model.

The proposed representation is as follows:

   1. designated member by the Consumer Protection Agency,

   2. designated member by the Minister of ICT

   3. designated member by the MCCI

   4. designated member by the Association of ISPs

   5. designated member by the MITIA

   6. designated member by the ISOC-MU

There are two members from the government. I prefer that the
government is considered on the same footing as everyone else instead
of having reserved seats. I don't know whether there is an
Association of ISPs in Mauritius. I have not seen any comments from
ISOC-MU about .mu issues. Why should the group has a designated
member? Why is there a representative of the Consumer Protection
Agency? That agency has never been involved in public .mu
discussions. I don't see how having a representative of that agency
will help .mu users. I do not think that there should be
appointments by the government as it may be a problem in future.

   "For this purpose, it is suggested that a .mu Registrar Supporting
Organisation
    is set up as a specialised advisory body that will advise the .mu
Council on
    issues relating to"

It looks like the proposed model is trying to replication the ICANN
approach. Anyone familiar with the topic knows that it is a
problematic approach. Furthermore, it only makes the structure more
complicated than it could be. My view after meeting with the .mu
registrars is that there isn't much interest from the .mu registrars
to participate in .mu discussions. It is up to the .mu registrars to
create an organisation or figure out what they would like in the
proposed model.

   "Fees are be paid that are at a level to attract and retain board members of
    suitable caliber."

 From the discussion between Ish and Logan I assume that the persons
on this mailing list would prefer that the organisation is run as a
non-profit where "board members" are reimbursed for their
expenses. Will that attract "people who have the standards of
ability and character to carry out the functions and will spend the
time required to fully consider the issues"? The first few years
will probably be difficult. If "board members" have to be given
adequate compensation the cost will have to be borne by .mu
registrants. What prevents "board members" to give themselves high
compensations?

I suggest that the proposed model be rewritten from a neutral
non-profit perspective and that adequate consideration is given to
what will work in practice. I would also like to suggest that the
organisation restricts itself to .mu and does not try to solve other
internet problems in Mauritius.

Finally, I would not like to see Mauritius trying to solve a .mu
problem again in future. That will happen if people to not pay
sufficient attention to what is being proposed now. For what it is
worth, a ccTLD which was used as an example during the
Multi-Stakeholder Forum meeting encountered that problem. I did not
comment about that as it would only have made the meeting discussions
more complicated.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Received on Thu Mar 26 2015 - 08:34:32 PST