Re: Note of Meeting for Multi-Stakeholder Forum held on 22 April 2015

From: S Moonesamy <sm+mu_at_elandsys.com>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 05:08:38 -0700

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you as a representative of the Mauritius Internet
Users. I would like to thank the Ministry of Technology,
Communication and Innovation for circulating the minutes of the
Multi-Stakeholder Forum which was held on 22 April. There are some
discrepancies in the amended notes of the meeting which I received
from the Ministry of Technology, Communication and Innovation.

The list of members present does not show whether there was a
representative of Internet Direct Ltd attending the meeting. Was a
representative of Internet Direct Ltd present at the meeting?

There is the following on Page 3 of the minutes:

   "4.1 Mr. Moonesamy pointed out the following:

      (i) a non-for-profit and legal entity would have to be setup to act
          as the .mu Council;

     (ii) all stakeholders would have equal status in the setting up of the
          .mu Council;

    (iii) all stakeholders would be able to participate in the decision making
           process of the .mu Council; and

     (iv) the Ministry of TCI would have to make necessary amendments
to the ICT Act."

Please refer to the notes of the second meeting of the .mu Select
Committee which I sent to the Ministry of Technology, Communication
and Innovation on 3 April. There was a discussion about membership
which was as follows:

   "Mr Gentil expressed his concern on the membership issue. He
disagreed on the
    .MU Council having a restricted membership. He proposed to have
the membership
    open to the public. Members discussed on whether to allow an
association or an
    individual to be part of the council. At the end of the discussion, the
    committee agreed to remove the list of member from the draft document.
    Mr Moonesamy mentioned that the .mu select committee will be
dissolved once it
    submits its recommendations. A legal entity with open membership
will have to
    be created to follow up on the recommendations. The committee agreed not to
    include any document about the .MU Council in its report"

The .mu Select Committee did not agree to a ".MU Council". The
report from the .mu Select Committee does not have the words ".MU
Council". What I said during the presentation of the work of the .mu
Select Committee was that:

   a non-for-profit and legal entity would have to be setup

I did not mention ".MU Council" at all. I did not say "all
stakeholders would have equal status in the setting up of the .mu
Council". The recommendation was that legal entity would have to
ensure "fair treatment to everyone in Mauritius" and that it "Does
not confer special status to the government or any group". I did not
say "all stakeholders would be able to participate in the decision
making process of the .mu Council;". The recommendation was that the
legal entity should be member-driven.

There is the following on Page 4 of the minutes:

   "4.2 The representative of the ICTA informed that

       (i) the .mu Select Committee had agreed that:

        (a) there were problems with regard to the .mu (1) at the Policy Level;
            (2) in the Legal Framework and (3) at the Commercial Level;

        (b) the .mu Council, which would be the formal agency, would
be responsible
            for the .mu policy and would be the one filing the case
for redelegation;

        (c) with regard to the technical aspect, it would be
preferable to come up
            with a local setup with an escrow at the international
level. The process
            might take much time, but in the long run it would be a sustainable
            solution for the .mu; and

        (d) the Multi-Stakeholder Forum would elect the members to sit on the
            .mu Council."

I was surprised to hear the representative of the ICTA using the term
".mu Council". I was not sure whether the representative of the ICTA
was confusing the report of the .mu Select Committee with the
"Proposed Governance Framework for the .mu ccTLD" from 2014. The
representative of the ICTA represented the Government on the .mu
Select Committee. I assume that the representative discussed the
draft report of the .mu Select Committee with the Government before
agreeing to it on behalf of the Government.

The .mu Select Committee agreed to 4.2. (i) (a). There wasn't any
agreement about 4.2 (i) (b), 4.2 (i) (c) and 4.2 (i) (d).

On Page 4 of the minutes:

   "(ii) with regard to the technical setup for hosting the technical
registry and the
         modus operandi to make it happen, he was of the opinion that:

         a holistic approach need to be adopted, whereby a resource
person would champion
         the whole governance as well as the technical issue and come
up with the best
         model;

         in this context, a consultant with hands-on experience in
the related field could
         be hired to perform the above-mentioned tasks in a
fast-track manner; and

         it was up to the members of the Multi-Stakeholder Forum to
decide thereon.


   4.3 Mr S. Moonesamy was of the opinion that the hiring of a
foreign consultant should
         be the prerogative of the .mu Council to decide upon."

The representative of the ICTA proposed hiring a Board member of
ICANN as, from what I understood, the following organisations did not
have the technical expertise to understand the technical document
which was circulated:

   - Ministry of Technology, Communication and Innovation
   - National Computer Board (NCB)
   - Central Informatics Bureau
   - Information and Communication Technologies Authority
   - Mauritius Telecom
   - Mauritius Bankers Association
   - Internet Society of Mauritius
   - University of Mauritius
   - Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry
   - Hot Link Co Ltd

I was surprised to hear that given that the technical details are not
that different from the one circulated during the last public
consultation by the Information and Communication Technologies
Authority about the .mu ccTLD . I would like to point out that none
of the members of the .mu Select Committee said that they did not
understand the technical details even thought they agreed to the
report of the .mu Select Committee.

The discussion was as follows: There were a question about whether
the technical proposal would work. I commented that the .mu Select
Committee evaluated the technical aspect to see whether it would work
and it is up to the not-for-profit entity to see how to implement the
technical part. This was followed by a question about whether there
was the technical expertise in Mauritius to implement a .mu
registry. Mr T. Dabeesing proposed hiring Mr Chris Disspain as he is
from auDA (Australia) and he is an ICANN board member. I commented
that it was up to the not-for-profit entity to decide about whether
it needs a consultant. I asked for my objection to be put in the
minutes. The Chair suggested that the ICTA hires and pays for the
consultant. I did not raise any objection about that as it would be
a decision of the ICTA.

On Page 6 of the minutes:

   "(ii) the .mu Council need to be based on a tripartite system consisting of
          Public-Private-Civil society;"

There wasn't any mention of a tripartite system during the meeting.

   "(iii) Government would have to be part of the .mu Council but
should not be
           the one driving the said Council;"

As far as I recall, there wasn't any mention of "government would
have to be part".

   "(v) as a matter of good governance, the model for the Mauritius
Chamber of Commerce
        and Industry (MCCI) which was an association, could be used
for the setting up of
        the .mu Council;"

Mr G. Ramalingum proposed a Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and
Industry model for the legal not-for-profit entity. I pointed out
that it does not fit the recommendations of the .mu Select Committee
and I mentioned that it might not fulfill the requirement for
transparency. Mr Ramalingum responded that the Mauritius Chamber of
Commerce and Industry is transparent as it has a web site. I also
mentioned that the model would not fit the requirement for open membership.

   "(vi) accountability would also be towards the Internet Community;"

I do not recall the above being mentioned during the meeting.

On Page 7:

   "(iii) the Information and Communication Technologies Authority
to hire an expert
           to provide assistance and help the Multi-Stakeholder Forum
to chart the way
           forward."

I commented that the above would be a decision of the Information and
Communication Technologies Authority as the Chair proposed that the
Information and Communication Technologies Authority could do
that. I also pointed out that it was not a matter for the
Multi-Stakeholder Forum to decide.

I would be grateful if the Ministry of Technology, Communication and
Innovation could correct the discrepancies in the minutes.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Received on Wed May 06 2015 - 12:09:21 PST