Hello,
I am commenting about the "Proposal of the .mu
Select Committee for the new .mu ccTLD
administration framework" document (2015). In my
opinion the proposal is a good starting point.
"From 1985 to 1993, ICANN delegated ccTLDs on
a first-come, first-served basis."
Please see
http://www.elandsys.com/~sm/mu-tld-dns-issue-2014-september.html
ICANN did not exist in 1985.
Section 4 proposes the remedy. It may three
years or more for the proposed plan to reach
completion. I suggest taking a way forward
approach instead of a remedy approach as it would
take less time to reach completion. This could
be done by removing Section 6 and Section 7 from the proposal.
"Commercial operation, where each tier shall be under the responsibility of
separate entities representative of the local Internet community with clear
delimitation and segregation of duties and responsibilities to avoid a
complete one entity based administration model for national resource
(public good) where that entity is not accountable to anybody."
I agree that .mu is a national resource for
Mauritius and that the entity managing it should
be held accountable for its decisions. It is not
possible for the entity to be accountable to the
local internet community. However, it is
possible for the entity to be accountable to its membership.
"The proposed three-tier model will trigger the opening up of the commercial
functions which will lead to competitive pricing for .mu domains for the
ultimate benefit of the Mauritian Internet users."
In my opinion Mauritian internet users will
benefit if there is competitive pricing for .mu domain names.
Section 10 mentions "Capacity building to operate
the technical infrastructure". What is the time estimate for that?
There is the following in Section 14:
"Set up the technical infrastructure in Mauritius and ensure redundancy
of the primary technical set up outside of Mauritius as per international
best practices."
I suggest changing the above to "Set up the
technical infrastructure in Mauritius and ensure
redundancy" as it would be better to keep the
costs to a minimum at the start. In addition, it
is a good way to demonstrate that Mauritius has
the technical capabilities to operate its technical infrastructure.
"It is to be noted that for both 1 & 2, we suggest to enlist appropriate
consultancy services. It is suggested that
the MTCI contact Mr Chris Disspain
of auDA (of Australia) for this purpose. Mr
Disspain is also the chair of the
Country Code Domain Name Supporting
Organization (ccNSO) and as such he is an
ICANN board member."
I'll use the comments from the mailing list about
the above in discussions with the members of .mu Select Committee.
Action line 1 has the following:
"Bottom up process in policy development"
under "member driven". I suggest that policy
development be done through the local internet
community in an open, fair and transparent manner.
"iii. Promotes public-private partnerships."
The meaning of the above is not clear.
"MTCI to start engaging in consultation with
different groups of stakeholders
representative of the local Internet community in a comprehensive manner in
order to"
"b. validate the proposed .mu Council model"
I commented about the proposed .mu Council is another message.
On Page 8:
"a. Registry location is sensitive should
be neutral where possible decided
or agreed upon through the consensus process."
I agree that the registry should be neutral
instead of favouring an Internet Service Provider.
"As indicated in section 15, the enlistment of
Mr Chris Disspain is reiterated
for this purpose."
The proposal recommends enlisting an ICANN Board
member. This could be raised as a concern at the
international level. I am not comfortable being
a party to such a recommendation as I have to
adhere to some requirements in my activities
outside Mauritius. I do not derive any financial
benefit from those activities.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Received on Thu Mar 26 2015 - 16:27:05 PST