Re: Notes of meeting of the Multistakeholder Forum

From: Loganaden Velvindron <>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:46:13 +0000

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 3:17 PM, S Moonesamy <> wrote:
> 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.

Why is this issue being raised only now ?

> 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.

Why were we not made aware that a representative of Internet Direct
Ltd was at this meeting ?

I would also like to know what he said ?

> 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.

I heard a different story: The proposal was clumsy.

>> 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?

There is NO assurance that a foreign consultant will be able to do the
job, as he's an ICANN board member. Therefore, he's closely involved
in management, not in technical matters.

Why are people repeatedly arguing for ICANN staff ?

> 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?

I think that this is a waste of taxpayer's money, which will badly
reflect upon the goverment during an audit.

>> 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.
Received on Wed Apr 22 2015 - 15:46:27 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Apr 22 2015 - 15:54:02 PST