Seems to me like a fair proposal! CFI can still handle the technical issues and continue to get a livelihood out of it. James seems to coin it fairly too.
Regards Richard On 05/07/2010, Wire James <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > -- East African Center for Open Source Software Consulting GM Plot 9 - 21 Port Bell Road Nakawa P. O. Box 26192 Kampala - Uganda Telephone +256 414 223802 Mobile +256 772 725252 "The new ICT Advisory, Innovations & Training Centre" _______________________________________________ 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. ---------------------------------------
