Hi Ish,
At 05:41 22-04-2015, Ish Sookun wrote:
>I doubt if a "caretaker" of a top-level domain can actually "sell" a
>secondary level domain. What would happen if someday .mu is
>re-delegated to another entity? The latter would not be under any
>legal obligation to maintain the "agreements" of the former.
I commented about that during the meeting and explained that the
government would be spending its money on an agreement which would
not be recognized by another party which might run .mu in future.
>I believe we haven't explored all mechanisms yet on how to obtain
>the .mu zone data.
There has been discussions about the .mu ccTLD since the last 15
years. I did not find any mention of any concern about the .mu zone
data. It is only after I made a presentation about ".mu - is there a
problem" that the representative of the Mauritius Bankers Association
commented that there is a single point of failure.
The Multistakeholder Forum have explored the mechanisms to solve the
.mu ccTLD problem since well over a year. It is only today that it
went beyond the question of whether there was a problem and, in my
opinion, agreed to the way forward which was proposed.
I was not aware that there was likely a representative of the
Internet Direct Ltd at this meeting. There wasn't any comment from
the representative about whether there was any mechanism to obtain
the .mu zone data.
At 07:09 22-04-2015, Ish Sookun wrote:
>There isn't much information available publicly to ascertain their
>level of progress. If ICTA didn't go ahead, then why they didn't?
>There is a lack of transparency on what happened and what was decided.
I commented during the meeting that this method was tried in 2007 and
it did not produce any results. The representative of the ICTA
responded that I was wrong and that ICTA decided not to proceed
further because of the low response from the local internet community.
>Agreed. However, the Multistakeholder Forum appears to be needing a
>strong "assurance" on the technical proposal. I think they trust
>"foreign consultants" more than local fellows.
The content of the technical proposal is similar to the one written
in 2007. There were representatives of the Mauritius IT Association,
the Mauritius Bankers Association, the Mauritius Chamber of Commerce
and Industry and two Internet Service Providers in Mauritius at the
meeting. The technical proposal was sent to the organisations last
Friday. Does it mean that the government and those organisations do
not have the technical expertise to review that type of technical
proposal? What strong "assurance" would there be if a "foreign
consultant" is hired to look at the technical proposal?
During the meeting I explained that the revenue for .mu might be
around four million rupees years. I took into consideration reducing
the price for a .mu domain name to half its current price as there
has been comments on the mailing list about a .mu domain name being
too expensive.
I was puzzled by the lack of interest of the other members at the
meeting about the financial aspect. Was it because the government or
ICTA will be disbursing the money to implement the proposal?
>For the sake of information, isn't the Government Web Portal advised
>& designed by foreigners?
Yes [1].
This is part of a comment which you made on 24 March:
"Taking into consideration the disruption hapenning at banking
level, the cost
of impact would be higher than the figures you suggested. We have
local banks
that operate with and provide services to regional countries, namely in the
African continent. The .mu domain going offline could bring several
international services to a still."
You might have forgotten to mention the above during the meeting. :-)
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1.
http://www.linkdev.com/news-room/press-releases/link-development-celebrates-the-launch-of-mauritius-e-governement-portal/
Received on Wed Apr 22 2015 - 15:19:54 PST