Hi SM,
I agree with you, the .MU Council is not the appropriate model to be
used for the new .MU Registry. In this model it would like Mauritius
Telecom and Air Mauritius and others where the Mauritian Government
decides on the persons to be put on the board. This can cause lot of
problems in the future.
It has to be a non-profit organisation and Citizens of Mauritius should
be allowed to become a member of the organisation and have a voting
right to elect the board members.
Best Regards,
Benoit
On 26/03/2015 12:34, S Moonesamy wrote:
> 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 - 15:17:43 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Thu Mar 26 2015 - 15:27:02 PST