I have read through the comments made on this subject and indeed while I concur with the fact that some polishing is needed on the way forward with the .ug, there are facts we can not keep hiding away from. What are those facts?
1. The .ug is a national resource that can not be left in the hands of a private company for good. While CFI has done a good job in getting us where we are today, the time has come for a change in the administration of this resource. The Government needs a say however small or big. The civil society and private sector also deserve a say too and that is why the proposal of forming a body that brings together the different parties is a good idea. As to whether we are copying what has been done elsewhere in E.A, that is a non-issue. For all the threats of Govt regulation, I say UCC go ahead and have a say in this .ug issue. 2. I concur with the separation of the Technical and Administrative management of this resource. While we can outsource the company to manage the technical aspects (through a bidding system), we need to have a more representative administrative design that caters for all the interests including those of yours truly (the Govt). I wonder why we never want Govt to have a say in matters that have a direct relation to national identity. Dispute resolution is one other thing that needs to be looked into. Currently, one may feel cheated if all they have to deal with is CFI to make a decision on a particular conflict that has arisen as a result of domain registration. 3. A situation where one private company handles the technical, administrative, dispute resolution etc mgt of this .ug resource is so unfair and does not bode well for this nation. What happens if that company closes shop? Depending on individuals for such a serious national resource is the epitome of poor planning IMHO. 4. We need to be able to start collecting more information about this .ug resource but in the current way it is managed, some of this information is treated as 'classified' for reasons you and me are well aware of. However, if a neutral body was in place, all this classification would not arise. One example is our failure to have an accurate online counter for the current status of domain registrations in UG. I keep being asked time and again how many domains in the various categories we have as .ug but that information is hard to come by. researchers are having a problem here. Some one once complained of how domains were removed from his docket and given to his client yet the client had not yet paid up for his services. He has never forgiven the registrar over this. 5. Reinier points out an interesting angle. The lack of an incentivised reseller programme. This is one of the things that has led to the failure for promotion of .ug by local ICT solutions providers. 6. Promotion of the .ug. In its current state, there is little or no promotion of the .ug in anyway and I would understand why. The only time I heard an advert on radio was about a year ago but how effective it was in getting people to embrace the .ug , one still wonders. A separate administrative body would look into all these issues and ensure that we start rolling out a massive campaign on the use of the .ug. I dont think the problem is so much about pricing but more about awareness and whether people would want to be associated with this resource. You have to make them like it. The writing is on the wall and I am finally happy that UCC is taking the bull by the horn to see that the .ug changes take place. I rest my case. Wire On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 20:21 +0300, Noah Sematimba wrote: > On Jul 1, 2010, at 7:41 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Dorothy Okello <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> [Apologies for cross-posting] > > > > > > In addition, Randy Bush, as an Internet Pioneer offered many ccTLD > > operators free secondary nameservice AFAIK. I don't think he was ever > > ccTLD manager of .ug (but I may be mistaken). > > He was Tech POC for .ug and was doing dns for the zone on his psg.com > servers. > > > > > I would also dispute Section 2 of the doc, specifically that more > > "equitable management of the domain would aid rural ICT development or > > "facilitate articulation of the views of Uganda". Grasping at straws > > IMHO. > > Totally Agree. I haven't yet heard anyone who says the biggest problem > they have in developing ICT is lack of access to a .ug domain name :-) > > > > > I don't understand why there is a perceived "need" to separate policy, > > operational and regulatory roles in .ug management. I also don't > > understand why the proposal specifically states this "need", then > > completely ignores it in creating a single body that does all three. > > > > +1 > > > I would be happy to have a private, non-profit entity operating the > > ccTLD, just not one completely dominated by government entities. My > > opinion is that governments have far too much influence in Internet > > related policy making as it is. We shouldn't invite them to control > > any more than they do (regulatory and tax environments, censorship, > > privacy laws, etc, etc). > > I am profoundly uncomfortable with more government involvement in the > internet especially the dns. The idea that at some point it can be > used to control access to information is not far fetched as China and > Iran have shown and UCC in the past when it instructed ISPs to block > radiokatwe.com towards election campaigns. > > > > > In Kenya, the KeNIC is a near perfect model of ccTLD management. It's > > only flawed in that the government has too large a role (if i want to > > operate a 2nd level domain for example [mctim.ke], I need a license > > from the CCK). > > Which is something totally undesirable. > > > > > This seems to be a rather ham-fisted power play by the UCC, the bottom > > line is that Noah as Tech Contact, and Charles as Admin Contact have > > to agree to the re delegation. If i were running the .ug registry, i > > would reject this proposal out of hand. It doesn't protect > > CFI/UOL/EAHD interests, and I don't see that it serves the greater > > interests of the UG Internet Community. I see it as serving ug gov't > > interests. > > I am not in support of this proposal as is. > > > > > If the UG gov't/UCC/MoICT really wanted to grow the Internet in UG, > > they would focus on access (gov't fiber anyone) issues and not on .ug. > > Naming conventions have nothing to do with cost or diffusion of > > Internet Access. > > Totally agree. > > > > I say all this with the greatest respect for the folk who have been > > pushing for changes to the .ug regime. I just think we have much more > > important issues to focus on, and I am one of those who feel that > > ccTLD admin is not a sovereign right of a nation state. > > True. Infact I find it as frivolous as the hullabaloo that has been > around for years on internationalisation of domain names. All it has > done is make things difficult for those who try to write > specifications for good code in places like the IETF. > > > > I hope to see you all at the EAIGF. > > I plan to be there. > > Noah. > _______________________________________________ > UiXP techies discussion list
_______________________________________________ LUG mailing list [email protected] http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/lug LUG is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/ All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ 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. ---------------------------------------
