On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Shri Yantra <shri.yantra_at_outlook.com> wrote:
> Jochen is right.
>
I don't think so.
> The gov.mu issue came up because these domains were never paid. The
> government used the service for years and instead of paying, they went to
> court to request this service for free.
Maybe it was because of the exorbitant fees asked. Anyway, coming
today and asking Rs 80 million, then, asking Rs 800, based on your
mood and the phase of the moon is not a good idea.
>
> Let's put the same situation with another TLD, say, you registered a .com.
> You use the domain for years, are given multiple extensions to settle the
> invoice and still don't settle it. Instead you sue Verisign in court to
> prevent suspension of this domain because it is critical to you. How likely
> are you to win this case? Is it within Verisign's (or the registrar) rights
> to suspend your domain? Of course!
>
> Was the .mu registry within its rights to pull the plug on any unpaid .mu
> domains? Certainly. The .mu registry should have disconnected gov.mu ages
> ago! They were too lenient with gov.mu and other .mu domains. As per earlier
> posts, many .mu registrants got a free ride for years, until it was
> disconnected recently.
>
> When mra.mu was disconnected for non renewal, did they go to court to
> request it as a free service? No, they renewed it immediately and was back
> online the very next day. Not sure who advised the government on going to
> the court for gov.mu, but it was certainly the wrong approach.
>
> When someone does not pay his electricity bill with CEB, company fees with
> the Registrar of Companies, or the phone bill with MT, what do these
> companies do? They add an automatic penalty for late payment and eventually
> disconnect the service (or strike the company off from the Registrar of
> Companies). What is different here? Do people jump up and down, screaming
> that we should distrust the CEB, the Registrar of Companies or MT for
> legitimately suspending their service?
>
> Unfortunately, this is the misleading information being spread here.
>
When I think of .mu ccTLD management, the first thing that come to
mind is a "LOLcopter".
> ________________________________
> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 12:18:37 +0400
> From: mscc_at_kirstaetter.name
> To: mauritius-internet-users_at_lists.elandnews.com
> Subject: Re: Renewal (or purchase) of .mu domain(s)
>
>
> Hi Logan,
>
> On 27/03/2015 12:07, Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
>
> And who was managing gov.mu ? wasn't that the .mu ccTLD manger ? Who pulled
> the plug on the gov.mu ? Again, the .mu ccTLD manager !
>
>
> True.
>
> Let me ask you several things:
>
> Why wasn't and still isn't the government, ie. Prime Minister's Office, the
> official Owner of the domain?
> Why were those domains not paid on time? Since years?
> How would you handle a client that doesn't want to pay for your services?
>
> Unfortunately, the righteous owner of gov.mu pulled the plug and put the
> domain offline.
> That was a bit clumsy, and should have been done already years ago. Latest
> when the case went in front of court.
>
> Honestly, it's my opinion that this distrust in the current .mu ccTLD
> management is surely encouraged by distribution of misleading information,
> particularly during the pre-election phase. And it's not limited to that
> phase as there has been an outcry or should I say a "hatred blame game"
> based on misguiding information by a registrar abroad begin of this year,
> too.
>
> I think that you're misleading people here.
>
>
> First, I'm not doing anything here other than asking others to read certain
> information correctly.
> Second, as stated it's my opinion. So take it or leave it.
>
> --
> Kind regards, Jochen
>
> Founder of Mauritius Software Craftsmanship Community
> http://www.meetup.com/MauritiusSoftwareCraftsmanshipCommunity/
--
This message is strictly personal and the opinions expressed do not
represent those of my employers, either past or present.
Received on Fri Mar 27 2015 - 10:01:31 PST