Hi All

I would like to concur with Badru on this argument. Believe you me,
Charles Musisi the MD of CFI (the current managers of the .ug ccTLD) is
a close personal friend and business associate. From the emails I am
seeing, there is an insinuation that Badru is trying to arm wrestle the
management of this ccTLD from CFI by bringing up this discussion. 

I would like to say that much as I cant rule out his desire to arm
wrestle the ccTLD management from CFI, that reason does not water down
the points he is advancing of having a community backed approach to a
national resource like the ccTLD of .ug. Lets separate personal or is it
private interests from common good. If I may ask right now how do we
determine the emergence of sub domains under the .ug
like .or.ug, .ne.ug, etc? Is there a set procedure? Who is responsible
for making the final decision on this?
In the event that a dispute came up to do with the .ug domain(s), who
handles such disputes? What level of powers do they have and what is the
level of recognition of their decisions?

Due to time I can not fully express the numerous questions I have over
domain management issues in Uganda. Without going technical, I can
assure you that there is a big need to streamline the way issues are
done. As to whether CFI remains the .ug managers that is not the crux of
the matter to me because the technical and business element is only a
subset of the whole picture. I personally believe we need to have a non
profit body that can offer the overall control of the .ug issues as
opposed to vesting such powers in a private company. 

Remember once again that I am saying all this for the good of the
industry without any personal leanings.

Many thanks

Wire James
Linux Solutions

On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 10:08 +0300, Badru Ntege wrote:
> Ernest and All
> 
> Please find my comments inline
> 
> 
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:58:03 +0200, "Ernest Byaruhanga (AfriNIC)"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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)
> 
> In no way have i suggested that CFI be replaced.  i have repeatedly
said that they do a good technical job however i did suggest that maybe
we get them to handle over one second level domain maybe like .or.ug to
another party this is good for the market.  You are all the same people
who argued for the end of telecom monopoly how were those questions
answered ??.  Yes they have invested but they have also earned.  All i'm
suggesting is that .ug is a national resource and though it is run on a
"cost recovery basis"  we should use some of that revenue and plug it
back into the community. ( And please lets not mention RCDF).  
> 
> 
> > 
> > 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...
> 
> The problem here is that most of the respondents here believe that
this thread is aimed at wrestling the control away from CFI.  My
intention is to hopefuly change the current status quo for the better of
all but not to replace the current cctld.  We unfortunatley even if we
wanted could not do it since you do not have a resource to do that.  We
have not done any capacity building.  sharing second level domains would
enable the country to build that capacity.  
> 

_______________________________________________
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.
---------------------------------------

Reply via email to