On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 3:47 PM, S Moonesamy <sm+mu_at_elandsys.com> wrote:
> 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.
You cannot be part of the decision-making process of the MIXP, without
having an ISP license, which is not the right approach. Currently, we
end up with a board which is composed of only of ISPs.
There is nothing for educational organization, or non-profit ones. I
don't think that this is how a cyber-island should run an IXP.
>
> 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.
SM, is it possible to have an exceptional meeting with the different
organizations, and include members of MIU, or whoever would like to
participate ? I don't think that the current structure that was
proposed is fair, as there are no individuals, or educational
representatives that form part of the local Internet Community.
>
>> 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
--
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 - 12:46:13 PST