I agree with Noah. As it is, the ccTLD is working perfectly with the current (business) model. Lets not fix what is not broken.
I dont even see the current model failing in the next several decades. -eb ---------------------------------------------------- my views are not necesarily those of my employer Noah K Sematimba wrote the following on 12/04/2006 08:51 AM: > See my comments in line: > > On Sunday 03 December 2006 10:49, Badru Ntege wrote: > >> The debate on whether this is being done right in Uganda or not seems to >> follow our current power isues. It seems to go on and off with half >> hearted attempts which at times fail to get buy in. > > I am not on most of those other forums, however the fact that the debate > doesn't seem to take off may also be indicative of the fact there is no > active interest in changing the status quo. This may very well stem from the > fact that it works and there is no reason anyone can see to fix something > that works. >> I would like to revisit this debate from a totally different point of view. >> Domain names, Ip addresses and Phone numbers have become the most >> important resources in the new world economy. Just like we do not have a >> private company in charge of issuing phone number ranges we should not have >> a private company in charge of our country top level domain. > > On the other hand, the .com, .org and other TLDs are working fine under > commercial management. I am not a fan of collective arrangements and I have > to say that the fact that the UIXP has not exactly prospered under that model > makes me queasy about putting something even more critical under such > management. Fortunately the UIXP tends to run itself with minimal input from > the stakeholders, but the same certainly does not apply to the ccTLD. > >> I suggest we take on a model similar to the south african one where non >> profit organisation oversees the country top level domain cctld and then >> contracts other organisations to techniaclly manage the resource. This >> would be a five year renewable contract. > > What is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. The nature > of the society matters a lot. While that model worked quite well in South > Africa, Ghana etc. I have not seen anything on the ground that convinces me > that it would work here. One thing we know for sure as I have pointed out > before is that for example while this model took the KIXP to greater heights, > it has failed miserably here mainly due to the fact that the situation here > is different. >> We would create an NGO for example Mydot UG (writen MY.UG) this would be a >> non for profit organisation which would take the revenues earned from the >> domain registrations and put them back into capacity building activities. > > And create a new sinkhole where the funds disappear into and the next thing > you know, you need yet another commission of inquiry. > >> For continuity CFI would be automatically awarded the first 5 year >> contract. However i do suggest that in a period of two years we would look >> at spliting the tlds into .co.ug .or.ug .ac.ug. To create an environment >> that helps the entire market we would then look at having other >> organisations bid to offer services like for example .or.ug. > > > Currently as far as I am aware, those splits you are talking about already > exist. I see domain names like one2net.co.ug, ec.or.ug, parliament.go.ug, > makerere.ac.ug, mak.ac.ug ... etc What more splitting are you talking about? > > Even with the current situation where they are split, I doubt whether each > generates enough business to make sense of parcelling it out to yet another > company. > > >> I do believe that CFI have done a comendable job to date but i feel there >> is a lot that needs to be done which at the moment can not fit well in a >> for profit organisation. When you look around the world or even just the >> continent you realise that little contribution from uganda exists at the >> technical or policy level when it comes to the Names arena. > > And you do not need to be the ccTLD manager in order to contribute to the > policies or technical issues concerning the names area in ICANN or the IETF. > This just indicates a lack of interest from the various stake holders. It is > an attitude problem not an institutional problem. > >> I would also like to put it on record that i do not beleive that UCC is the >> right body to handle the cctld. I do beleive we need an entity with about >> 6 board members from the following areas of the population >> >> Public (gov-maybe represented by someone from the ministry of ICT ) >> Private >> Academia >> Civil society >> Legislative >> The cctld manager > > And then you get into the technicalities of how exactly do these board > members > get selected in a way that is free and fair and not subject to manipulation > and yet ensures that actually the people who get there are the ones most > competent to be there and not necessarily the ones most politically savvy. > >> I welcome constructive and positive online debate on this issue. > > I hope the above fits into your definition of constructive and positive > online > debate. > > > Noah. > _______________________________________________ > To post, write to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > WIU-Forum information page and archives: > http://lists.wougnet.org/mailman/listinfo/wiu-forum > Information about WOUGNET: http://www.wougnet.org > WIU-Forum is hosted on Kabissa - Space for change in Africa > _______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug %LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way. ---------------------------------------
