Not too long ago there was some debate about whether to transfer management of the world DNS system along with the root servers from the USA to the United Nations. while the suggestion seemed politically correct, finding the relevant technical expertise in the UN was found to be quite a challenge Anyone know how that turned out? perhaps we could draw come lessons
Henry On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 09:51 +0300, Noah K Sematimba wrote: > 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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. > --------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ 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. ---------------------------------------
