Hello,
I will send the following comments to the .mu Select Committee.
The proposed framework is a good starting point.
In Section 1:
"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.
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"
During the last meeting of the Multi-stakeholder
forum the government suggested that the .mu
efforts be driven by the community. The action
proposed above is not in line with
that. Furthermore, it is unlikely that a
government ministry would have the resources to
reach out to the local internet community in an effective manner.
The Mauritius Internet Users do not support a
representative model. I would like to suggest
that the .mu Select Committee considers the
following points for the legal entity:
(a) There will be fair treatment to everyone in Mauritius
(b) The legal entity will be member-driven.
(c) Any two elected members of the Board cannot have the same affiliation.
(d) A member affiliated with a .mu registrar
or a .mu reseller is not eligible
for board membership
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.
The "Proposed Governance Framework for the .mu
ccTLD" document is dated June 2014. Some parts
of that document is at odds with the "Proposal of
the .mu Select Committee for the new .mu ccTLD
administration framework". For example, Action
line 1 of the framework mentions "fair treatment
to all groups" while the document recommends
designated members for a .mu Council. There is
the following about the .mu Council size:
"The Council has to be large enough to have a breadth of skills, experience,
knowledge and enthusiasm and with sufficient number of members to carry the
workload but balanced against the efficiency and effectiveness generally of
a smaller group."
Would the designated member by the Consumer
Protection Agency have the knowledge and enthusiasm?
The document recommends a member designated by
the Minister of ICT. There has been some concern
about having members appointed by government.
The document proposes a .mu Registrar Supporting
Organisation as a specialised advisory body. I
suggest having a lean structure instead of replicating ICANN.
"Fees are be paid that are at a level to attract and retain board members of
suitable caliber. There is a need to ensure that the governance of .mu is
in the hands of 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."
How would a representativity model ensure that
governance of .mu is in the hands of people who
have the standards of ability and character? The
fees will have an impact on the price for a .mu domain name.
The document proposes (Section 4) that the
current ccTLD manager will be responsible for the
operational aspects. That does not fit in with
the not-for-profit structure mentioned in the framework.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Received on Mon Mar 30 2015 - 15:41:39 PST