On Monday 04 December 2006 10:58, Badru Ntege wrote: > The UIXP has run for over 4 years todate and the traffic passing through it > has increased. This is run and maintained by stakeholders. If you keep in > the loop you will know that we are working on a number of things like > upgrade the infrastructure you should see a proposed plan in a few days. > We are making plans other plans that will be on the list in the next few > days like introduction of a root server.
The UIXP has run for 4 years. I am well aware of that fact as the person who chaired all those meetings that culminated into its startup. However I am also well aware of the fact that some of the pipe dreams we had about what the UIXP could lead to and how there would be such growth etc have not materialised. Also the fact that the plans had to be made outside of the established way fo making changes at the UIXP shows clearly why i am unhappy with subjecting the ccTLD to those kinds of consensus based arrangements. Simply put, if you had put those ideas and other plans you talk about on the UIXP list, it would have taken weeks and months of cyclic discussion before a decision could be reached which is why you find yourself having to circumvent the very system in place in order to get things moving. This is what I object to. I see that it is not working in the first place and see no reason to use what is clearly not working in yet another situation. > The sinkholes are results of the don't care attitude. Unfortunately it > might be naive but i'm still one of those who beleive that public entities > need to be accountable to the population and we have people who can serve > honestly with dedication. Exactly! The problem as I stated in my earlier message is that it is an attitude problem not an institutional problem. You do not change attitudes by changing institutions. How are you going to ensure that only the people who will serve honestly with dedication are the ones elected/appointed? What mechanisms will you have in place to avoid abuse of the system? The plain fact is that consensus based systems are often open to abuse and manipulation and cyclical arguments thus making decision making a chore. Decisions are thus often based not on the optimum solution, but rather on the best compromise solution. On the other hand commercial decisions are made based on what works most efficiently at minimum cost. Communism failed, capitalism thrived. When it comes to very critical issues, it is often best to have a single source of control that is not subject to mob hysteria and manipulation. > Noah My point exactly your philosohy is there is no need or requirement and > my position is we have not put in that efort. Examples show that this works > and we have UK and also .ZA an initial set of six second-level domains was > created when the .ZA top-level domain was first established. They are > AC.ZA, CO.ZA, GOV.ZA, MIL.ZA, NET.ZA and ORG.ZA. This list mirrored the > structure used for the .UK domain at the time. Other second level domains > were added over the years at the request of the communities to be served by > those domains and immediately delegated to a representative of the served > community. You did not get me right. I pointed out that there is no need for it because it already exists! if you check out the website http://www.registry.co.ug you can clearly see that you can register under .ac.ug, .co.ug, .or.ug .org.ug, .mil.ug, .go.ug, etc. My point is not about innovation but about needlessly re-inventing the wheel. > Each of these administrators operates the database for that SLD and > provides the related registry services. (To a significant extent, the > administrators also currently determine policy for these sub-domains.) In fact checking out the FAQ shows me clearly that anyone who wants can become an accredited registrar and do domain registration and set their own policies as long as those policies do not conflict with those of the .ug registry. My point is this: In order to advocate for a change in the way the registry is currently run, you need to show cause for it. Where I come from, you do not fire someone for a job well done, you only fire them for failing to perform the job they are supposed to perform. Therefore Point by point name the issues you have with the way CFI runs the registry currently, your proposed suggestions and then show cause why we can't just ask for these changes to be implemented rather than going with a totally untested system and thus playing with a resource that is critical. So far you've talked about encouraging participation in forums and I've pointed out that you do not need to be a ccTLD manager to participate in ICANN or IETF or any of those other forums. So this is not a valid reason in my opinion to advocate for change. Secondly you mentioned second level domains, and I have pointed out that these already exist and in fact have existed right from the start when the registry was still being managed from overseas. When sufficient need is shown, new second level sub TLDs are created for the purpose. You talked about other registrars handling registrations and I've pointed out that this also currently already exists just in a different form with accredited registrars. So what is the problem with the current setup that you want the stakeholders to address? So if you wanted to run your own .co.ug registry all you have to do is become an accredited registrar in the same way opensrs and some others do for the .com TLD. You can then market yourself and sell .co.ug domains as an accredited registrar. Technically I do not see any problems with the way the registry is currently run. Queries are fast, we've never had downtime on the .ug TLD because of a technical failure, there is redundancy, and the zone is kept stable with updates only happening twice a day which is actually more frequent than .com or .org where any new registrations take 24 hours to be propagated onto the internet. I've added some people onto the CC: list as I am not sure they are subscribed to this list and I am not subscribed to any of the others that Badru posted to. To summarise, I am not against change but I am against gratuitous changes that achieve no purpose or fix no problems and may instead cause more troubles in the longer term. Change is good but stability is even more critical. Too many companies, organisations etc depend on the smooth functioning of their .ug domain names and decisions on making massive changes that could affect them should not be undertaken lightly and the reasons should be sound. Noah. _______________________________________________ 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. ---------------------------------------
