---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: .mu proposed model
To: chitz <chittra.03_at_gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:18 PM, chitz <chittra.03_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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?
I often write code without any money in sight :-)
Non-profit organizations exist in Mauritius, and they received their
funding from the government.
>
> if it is charged you are sure someone will continue the work whether
> government changes in future.
Hence, why the organization needs to become profitable by "exploding"
the .mu domain name market. Once the uptake ticks in, it will become
self-sufficient, and less depending on government funding, which is a
good thing.
Instead of buying a blogoflogan.com, we need to encourage people to
buy blogoflogan.mu.
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
--
This message is strictly personal and the opinions expressed do not
represent those of my employers, either past or present.
--
This message is strictly personal and the opinions expressed do not
represent those of my employers, either past or present.
Received on Thu Mar 26 2015 - 17:59:15 PST