How does one come about having this licence? For all i know you might have
an engineering degree and still be licenced with the amount of corruption
in this country....
On Mar 31, 2015 3:06 PM, "Loganaden Velvindron" <loganaden_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 - 12:25:49 PST