Hi Badru, In an attempt to be more practical, I have a few unanswered questions:
If there is something i missed in some posting, please inform me, as mail to read these days can be too much ;) o CFI has invested quite a lot in running and operating the ccTLD If this function is to be rotated, i would need some kind of compensation for my investments if i were CFI. We're talking training, coders' salaries, equipment, intellectual property, etcetera. Who will take care of this? (I theoretically see it as a 'buyout' or 'takeover', and a legal battle may potentially arise) o Reading through the IANA document ICP-1 and RFC1591, IANA assigns the ccTLD to an entity, with some operational requirements that must be fulfilled. Please see: http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm and http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt . Moving the ccTLD management from one org to another needs full consent of the current entity managing the cctld, and this can be done ONLY if the current cctld manager has 'misbehaved' as the document states. Generally, IANA cannot transfer management to another entity if there is no consent from the current manager. please read the rest for your info... rgds, ernest. Badru Ntege wrote the following on 12/05/2006 10:28 PM: > Thanks Gerald for your comments but we are still missing the point. > if you read the thread the percentage issue was used in response to a > view that seemed to say that we all those who need to be part of the > general discussions on policy that will affect them have the means and > are just too lazy to join. My view is that there are those sections > of our society who for one reason or another might not have access and > access does not mean connectivity. it is always easy to to trivialise > access down to connectivity but the debate is far bigger. (IGF etc) > > Lets get back to the original issues, RCDF etc are totally diferent > issues and we can open that debate to show how that has also not > happened well since decisions are made by an "elite" who presumably > have all the answers. But lets not go there. > > You are right connectivity is not part of this discussion and there > was no reference to it in the original discussion. > > On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:13:28 +0300 (EAT), Begumisa Gerald M > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Badru Ntege wrote: >> >>> how about the masses who do not have access to the internet which >>> at last estimation would be over 90% of our population. "If they >>> have no bread, then let them eat cake!" That's your position. >> With respect, Badru, that sounds alot like a straw man argument. I >> don't think Noah means "the 90% who do not have Internet access >> should go to the AfNOG workshops instead". It seems to me he's >> talking about the 10% who have Internet access. >> >> In my personal opinion, "the ways of making the Internet accessible >> to the other 90% of the population" is another discussion entirely >> and does not necessarily have much to do with the ccTLD. In fact I >> dare say it might have more to do with teledensity and the >> availability of communications infrastructure in the greater part of >> the country ;-). The last I heard, UCC is already doing something >> about this - RCDF very easily comes to mind. >> >> I personally think that the connectivity issue should be tackled >> first before a domain name can even begin to make any sense to that >> 90% of the population who do not know what the Internet is, much >> less how to access it. At this time in Uganda (where 90% of the >> population cannot access the Internet), putting effort into >> designing a new model for the management of the ccTLD is probably >> putting that effort in the wrong place - if at all that change is >> beneficial, it will only be beneficial to that 10%. Connectivity >> comes first. >> >> >> Regards, Gerald. _______________________________________________ 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. --------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ 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. ---------------------------------------
