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

From: Irshaad Abdool <irshaad_abd_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 22:33:27 +0400

Hi all;
I have two questions related to the document "Note of Meeting - Multi Stakeholder Forum (22 April 2015)"
First;
On Page 4; 4.2 (i) (d) ; It is mentioned that "The representative of the ICTA informed that (i) the .mu Select Committee had agreed that (d) the Multi-Stakeholder forum would elect the members to sit on the .mu Council";

I would like to know 'elected from where?' Will the membership be open? Will it among the current members? Maybe somebody could clarify on that.
Second;
On Page 7; 4.8 (viii) ; It is mentioned that " [snip] A request could be made to ICTA for seed money to set up the technical registry"
My question is, from where will the money come from? Will it be from the budget allocated by the Government of Mauritius to the ICTA or some other private funds somewhere?
Thank You
Regards;

M Irshaad Abdoolwww.irshaad.me | www.blog.irshaad.mefacebook.com/abdoolirshaad

From: tejas_at_pagooah.com
To: shelly_hermia_at_hotmail.com; sm+mu_at_elandsys.com; pgorden_at_govmu.org; rhawabhay_at_govmu.org; spurmessur_at_govmu.org; nshewraj_at_govmu.org; jphokeer_at_govmu.org
CC: mauritius-internet-users_at_lists.elandnews.com; patrice_at_defimedia.info; l.rampersand_at_lexpress.mu
Subject: RE: Note of Meeting for Multi-Stakeholder Forum held on 22 April 2015
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 21:23:59 +0400

Dear All, My name is Tejas Pagooah. I own my web development company incorporated as Graphics Temple Ltd. I have read about the minutes of the meeting and I would like to point out that the MCCI model is NOT a good governance model. I completely disagree with what is written in the minutes. The MCCI has never represented my interests in doing business in Mauritius. Reading about its mandate: http://www.mcci.org/en/our-institution/functions/ I don't see why it should be considered as a good governance model.Membership is restricted, and it does not suit a not-for-profit entity for managing a ccTLD. I believe therefore that A. The MCCI model is not suitable for a non-profit company, as its membership is restrictive.B. The MCCI should pull out of the not-for-profit entity, as it clearly does not have the experience for managing a ccTLD entity. It does not represent the interest of my company or the vast majority of IT companies in Mauritius.C. As a Mauritian web company, I want the ccTLD to be led by competent Mauritians. Chris Disspain's nomination is a flagrant example of conflict of Interest. Regards,Tejas (Nirvan) PagooahCTO at Graphics Temple Ltd,Twitter / Facebook / LinkedIn From: mauritius-internet-users-bounce_at_lists.elandnews.com [mailto:mauritius-internet-users-bounce_at_lists.elandnews.com] On Behalf Of Shelly Hermia Bhujun
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 9:12 PM
To: S Moonesamy; Praidy Gorden; R. Hawabhay; S. Purmessur; U. Shewraj; J.D Phokeer
Cc: mauritius-internet-users_at_lists.elandnews.com; patrice_at_defimedia.info; l.rampersand_at_lexpress.mu
Subject: RE: Note of Meeting for Multi-Stakeholder Forum held on 22 April 2015 Dear Sir/Madam, It is surprising that the amended notes of meeting contains misunderstandings which gives another turn to the discussions and to the decisions of the multi-stakeholder forum. It is disturbing that the Ministry of Technology, Communication and Innovation , National Computer Board, Central Informatics Bureau and the Information and Communication Technologies Authority does not have the expertise to understand information technology specifications. Adding to that, i was indeed very surprised to read that Mauritius Telecom, Mauritius Bankers Association, Internet Society of Mauritius, University of Mauritius and the Mauritius Chamber of Commerce and Industry does not have the technical expertise. I am against any recommendation by the representatives of the Mauritius Internet Users to request foreign expertise for .mu ccTLD as there must be people in Mauritius who understand how DNS works. It is a concern that there is no transparency in this so call multi-stakeholder forum. I doubt that the local Internet community would be comfortable with having such a forum taking decisions about the .mu ccTLD as it is a matter which is relevant to everyone using the Internet in Mauritius. From what i understand, Mr G. Ramalingum and Mr T.Daveesing participated in the work of the .mu select committee. It is puzzling that these two persons are recommending a model for the .mu ccTLD which is the opposite of what the .mu select committee recommended. I am against adopting an MCCI model for the .mu ccTLD as the model has a very restrictive membership. It is to be noted that the MCCI is a body for businesses and it does not include the average Internet user in Mauritius to express their opinion. I hope that the Ministry of Technology, Communication and Innovation will ensure that the Local Internet Community will not excluded from the decision making process for the .mu ccTLD and that the concerns of the Local Internet Community will be taken into account. Regards,Shelly Hermia Bhujun > Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 05:08:38 -0700
> To: pgorden_at_govmu.org; rhawabhay_at_govmu.org; spurmessur_at_govmu.org; nshewraj_at_govmu.org; jphokeer_at_govmu.org
> From: sm+mu_at_elandsys.com
> Subject: Re: Note of Meeting for Multi-Stakeholder Forum held on 22 April 2015
> CC: mauritius-internet-users_at_lists.elandnews.com; ish_at_hacklog.in
>
> 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 Thu May 07 2015 - 18:33:49 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu May 07 2015 - 18:36:02 PST