.mu issues (was: Notes of meeting with the .mu Select Committee)

From: S Moonesamy <sm+mu_at_elandsys.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 04:47:12 -0700

Hi Logan,
At 04:04 31-03-2015, Loganaden Velvindron wrote:
>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.

I made a comment about MIXP as, a few weeks ago, I asked the Ministry
of Technology, Communication and Innovation whether it was
operational. In response, Mr Ramalingum said that there are several
ISPs peering at MIXP and that the facility was open to everyone.

The location of .mu operations is a sensitive issue. It was agreed
that the location would be neutral. At the moment I assume that MIXP
could be considered as neutral. I would verify the information
before writing that in a report.

>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 ?

I mentioned the Mauritius Internet Users being the most active on the
.mu issues. It may be the custom in Mauritius to argue for having a
seat for your group. I do not think that it would be appropriate of
me to argue for a reserved seat for my group while I am chairing the
.mu Select Committee. My preference is to have a structure which is
fair to everyone. It is not possible to have that when organisations
ask for reserved seats. It was pointed out that, for example, MITIA
represents the software industry in Mauritius and it should have a
reserved seat.

>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

Yes. It is difficult to explain this point.

>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.

It is likely that the draft report will not say anything about the .mu Council.

>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.

I agree that the reserved seat approach is not a good one.

>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.

How will we modify the .mu Council?

The commitment which I took is to deliver the work today. The work
will be late by a week. The .mu Select Committee will probably
deliver a report which proposes a way forward. I did what is
possible to ensure that the .mu Select Committee makes progress. The
work required between three and six months. It was done in less time
than that.

The pending issue is the structure. It is up to the persons
interested in .mu issues to be present when that matter is discussed.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Received on Tue Mar 31 2015 - 11:47:44 PST