RE: Notes of meeting of the Multistakeholder Forum

From: Shelly Hermia Bhujun <shelly_hermia_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2015 21:04:21 +0400

Hello,
Why do we need to create an association? Will it have more impact? Is this our objective? We did a presentation yesterday and we talked about the two current initiatives. We noticed that the people were aware of the problem mentioned but most of them seems to be completely fine to remain silent instead of making things happen. I think that even if we do have an association, it will not change much as the number of participants would still be low.
Thank you.

> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 22:41:48 -0700
> To: nadim.attari_at_gmail.com; jpp_at_legekko.info; mauritius-internet-users_at_lists.elandnews.com
> From: sm+mu_at_elandsys.com
> Subject: Re: Notes of meeting of the Multistakeholder Forum
>
> Hi Nadim, Jean-Philippe,
> At 21:21 23-04-2015, Mohammad Nadim wrote:
> >We agreed to have a non-profit org and that it should be neutral. We
> >also agreed that we would not like board members to be nominated by
> >ministers / ICT ministry - the government should not be involved;
> >else the nominated board members shall (most probably) implement the
> >agenda of the government and it may not be in the common interest or
> >in favour of the general internet users.
>
> At 21:55 23-04-2015, Jean-Philippe Caussin de Perceval wrote:
> >L'association est la meilleure solution et la plus representative.
>
> The problem is more about how an association is constituted. The
> members of the .mu Select Committee approved a proposal which
> recommended a neutral status for the legal entity for the following reasons:
>
> (i) fair treatment to everyone in Mauritius
>
> (ii) does not confer special status to the government or any group
>
> If the above recommendation is followed there should not be any board
> members nominated by a minister or a ministry. As Nadim mentioned,
> having nominated members will lead to a situation where those members
> implement the agenda of the government and it may not be in the
> interest of general internet users.
>
> In the previous proposal and the one which I wrote, there is the following:
>
> The current state of affairs is that the existing .mu private entity and
> the existing laws "are in breach of ccTLD international practices as those
> two ccTLD frameworks do not allow the local Internet Community (Mauritius)
> to have any say on the policy, technical and commercial functions of the
> dot mu ccTLD."
>
> None of the persons at the meeting looked into whether what was being
> suggested during the meeting was "in breach of ccTLD international
> practices". Examples of existing legal entities (in Mauritius) were
> provided without a proper explanation of how those associations
> fulfill what is written in the proposal.
>
> Regards,
> S. Moonesamy
>
>
                                               
Received on Fri Apr 24 2015 - 17:04:36 PST