On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:05 AM, 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. > WRONG UCC can just advise IANA is the boss UCC is a regulator ;-) The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is the body responsible for coordinating some of the key elements that keep the Internet running smoothly. Whilst the Internet is renowned for being a worldwide network free from central coordination, there is a technical need for some key parts of the Internet to be globally coordinated – and this coordination role is undertaken by IANA. Please start from the basics before you start confusing everything!!And don't use the past tense CFI is "doing a good job" and "it will still do better than......" > > 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. > Still basics IANA > > 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. > As above it's not a government entity open for bids!! > > 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. > Like what info is classified? > > 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. > Hell no it's the awareness you need to work on first.Secondly talk about money here.... > > 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. > CFI used it's money that wasn't government funds > > 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. > > James don't mislead UCC on this one Am a member at CFI and am a happy customer ask any ISP if they have any issues as these are the biggest pushers for .ug and without "us" this beef you have for CFi wouldn't be there > I rest my case. > You ought to > Meanwhile --->> > http://www.iana.org > Ronny > 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. > --------------------------------------- > > >
_______________________________________________ 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. ---------------------------------------
