Noah Your points are noted with due respect and i will not try and answer all points, However you miss my point on the second level domains. Yes they exist and are all managed by one entity. Please take some time and google up the examples i suggested and then understand what i meant.
I will leave the other comments for now for public debate so as this does not turn into a two people debate. But if you read my mail you will understand that i have no prob with what CFI do today from a technical perspective. On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:04:10 +0300, Noah K Sematimba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. ---------------------------------------
