On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:34 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+mu_at_elandsys.com> 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.
>
[chittra]
today we are still discussing later what will happen we do not know?
will we be there future to defend the cause? this is a question we need to
ponder upon
who will work without money?
if it is charged you are sure someone will continue the work whether
government changes in future.
Example
I always thought ips are being assigned by Orange never thought Afrinic is
the real company who is behind.
Orange is a profitable company and it is growing. Afrinic is under
international organisation.
where will .mu stand if non-profit?now itself you can see some are not
thinking about the logic, the importance behind what can you expect more?
Well this is my opinion only?
>
> 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 - 16:18:25 PST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Thu Mar 26 2015 - 16:27:02 PST