On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:38 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+mu_at_elandsys.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I chaired the second meeting of the .mu Select Committee which was held in
> ICTA Board Room at 10:10 a.m. I took some notes of that meeting. The
> purpose of the meeting was to discuss about the commercial, technical and
> policy components for .mu.
>
> Mr Beegun pointed out that the commercial component comes after the policy
> component. Mr Ramalingum mentioned that the commercial component is
> important as we need to know the costs. He commented that it is an
> important factor but we need to consider the other items first. Mr Gentil
> mentioned that the price of a .mu domain name is an issue and Mr Ramalingum
> agreed to that. Mr Dabeesing commented that he business model cannot be
> finalized right now. Mr Ramalingum compared the cost of .com and .mu and
> commented that the price difference is because of economies of scale. Mr
> Dabeesing asked whether a .mu domain name is sold at a fixed price. Mr
> Gentil mentioned that he is a .mu registrar and he is charged the wholesale
> price.
>
> Mr Gentil gave a quick overview of the of the estimated cost [1] for the
> technical component. The new version of the estimates proposes three staff.
> There would be two of the DNS servers hosted in Mauritius. Mr Dabeesing
> asked when we can become operational. Mr Ramalingum suggested having the
> Goc hosts the DNS servers. Mr Dabeesing suggested having the DNS servers
> hosted at the MIXP. Mr Gaonjur commented that Mauritians may have an issue
> with it being hosted at the MIXP as there is a perception that it is the
> Government Online Centre. Mr Ramaligum pointed out that the MIXP is open to
> everyone.
>
Hi SM,
I once contacted th MIXP to host an Open Source mirror. I was told
that I couldn't be part of the board, because I didn't have an ISP
license. So, I would like further clarification regarding the
statement "MIXP is open to everyone", which is not convincing.
> Mr Dabeesing presented the policy component. There is a policy problem and
> a problem in the law. Mr Beegun mentioned that we have to see who will be
> part of the .mu Council. It will be up to the .mu Council to finalize its
> objectives and the details. As a comment about the .mu Council, Mr
> Dabeesing said that he advised that a two-tier model is complicated and it
> would not work. Mr Gentil mentioned that his main concern is the
> membership. Mr Ramalingum mentioned that it will not be possible to get
> something running with hundred people being part of the discussion. Mr
> Ramalingum added that certain organisations need to have reserved seats on
> the .mu Council and it can be enlarge later.
Reserved seats ?
I would welcome further clarification regaring the list of "reserved
seats". In that case, I believe that MIU should have reserved seats
as MIU was the most active during the .mu problems. I would like to
know what those organizations -- who would like to have a reserved
seat today -- were doing when members of MIU raised awareness of the
problems with .mu ?
>
> Mr Gaonjur asked whether MITIA would have a seat. MITIA would have a seat
> according to the current .mu Council document. Mr Gaonjur asked about the
> cost and Mr Ramalingum replied that the cost is not an issue for now.
I think that the .mu Council needs to be reviewed as it does not
reflect the composition of the local Internet Community. I would like
to make it clear that I have no problem with private companies who
would like to participate, but I would prefer to have a small number
of companies who have demonstrated their understanding of the .mu
problems, and a willingness to improve the current state of affairs.
Hence, I think that members of MIU should be present as well to
balance the composition of the .mu Council.
>
> Mr Ramaligum estimated that the time to be operational would be around six
> months and Mr Ramalingum agreed. Mr Dabeesing mentioned that time is of the
> essense; ee need to show that it can be done in the estimated time. Mr
> Dabeesing mentioned that the issue is not money, we need to show that we can
> get this running. Mr Gaonjur asked for some background information about
> .mu and Mr Ramalingum provided the information.
It appears that some of those organizations lack understanding the of
problems with .mu, and want a reserved seat. I don't think that this
is the right approach.
>
> As a representative I said that I was in favor of a membership model instead
> of a .mu Council representative model. I pointed out that there were two
> ISOC-MU and I raised an issue about the Consumer Protection Agency
> representing users and having a representative appointed by a Minister. I
> mentioned that the Mauritius Internet Users would not have any
> representative under the currently proposed .mu Council model.
And this is definitely wrong. MIU was the first group to raise
awareness of the problems with .mu. We need to modify the .mu Council
to balance the composition of that group so that it is a well balanced
board.
>
> There was agreement for the Chair to draft a report and submit it to
> Chairperson of the Multi-stakeholder Forum once there was agreement among
> the .mu Select Committee members. The draft report would recommend having a
> non-profit organisation without discussing about the details of membership.
> It was agreed that this would be the last meeting of the .mu Select
> Committee.
>
> The meeting ended at 11:05.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
> 1. http://www.elandsys.com/~sm/mu-selectcommittee-technicalproposal.docx
>
>
--
This message is strictly personal and the opinions expressed do not
represent those of my employers, either past or present.
Received on Tue Mar 31 2015 - 11:05:14 PST