[kictanet] [isoc_ke] The .ug debate: Is Re-delegation Necessary? Comparison with .ke

Wed Oct 15 14:11:02 EAT 2014

I know that ICANN and the RFC are very specific about ownership but .kp is
a great counter-example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kp

Obviously there is no multistakeholder system in North Korea and the
Government of DPRK (North Korea) still has 'ownership' of the tld.

--
Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io
Musings: twitter.com/varud <https://twitter.com/varud>
More Musings: varud.com
About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe at gmail.com>
wrote:

> An important clause from RFC 1591
>
> These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated
>       domain, and have a duty to serve the community.
>
>       The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for
>       both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global
>       Internet community.
>
>       Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are
>       inappropriate.  It is appropriate to be concerned about
>       "responsibilities" and "service" to the community.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Brian Munyao Longwe <blongwe at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Adam,
>>
>> I beg to differ with you regarding your point that cctld are "owned" by
>> the respective government of the country in question. This has been a
>> matter of much debate within the ICANN fraternity and has come up severally
>> within the GAC.
>>
>> As per ICP-1
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/delegation-2012-02-25-en which is
>> the document that sets out how cctld are to be administered, the concept is
>> not one of "ownership", but rather that of "management" of a particular
>> territory's cctld. While the opinion and concerns of a government are taken
>> very seriously by ICANN - they need to be supported by key stakeholders to
>> the Internet in that territory. The collective consisting of government and
>> other stakeholders (private sector, civil society, consumers, academia etc)
>> is loosely referred to as the "local internet community" and consensus by
>> this grouping on who and how the cctld is managed is considered as
>> paramount.
>>
>> In any of the aforementioned situations (.KE and .UG) what matters the
>> most is **consensus** in determining any changes in "management" of the
>> cctld.
>>
>> In Kenya's case, the consensus that persists until now is that KENIC (the
>> entity) is the manager. It is therefore up to the local internet community
>> to determine what the governance structure (board) of KENIC is - and
>> thereby ensure that suitable personnel (management and staff) are appointed
>> to fulfil the mandate as per ICP-1 guidelines and according to locally
>> determined policies and strategies.
>>
>> I guess the same would apply to .UG - here below is what I sent to one of
>> the lists in Uganda where this piece regarding .UG was being discussed.
>>
>> > Good read,
>>
>> >
>>
>> > I was quite heavily involved in the .KE rede legation and the setup of
>>
>> > KENIC.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > The most critical factor in the process is the construct referred to
>>
>> > by ICANN/IANA as the "Local Internet Community". This consists of
>>
>> > Government, industry, civil society, academia and ought to be
>>
>> > representative enough to be recognized as such.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > No matter how much one stakeholders makes noise or lobbies, a rede
>>
>> > legation is very difficult or impossible without this critical factor.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > If The ministry is serious about this, then they need to make an
>>
>> > effort to bring together all the critical stakeholders (including i3c)
>>
>> > and jointly develop a plan and strategy on how the namespace will be
>> operated.
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Obviously this cannot happen overnight (in Kenya it took us 13 months)
>>
>> > so be prepared to do some hard work. The process is also important as
>>
>> > it will also (over time) truly reveal those stakeholders who are
>>
>> > genuine (and those who
>>
>> > aren't!)
>>
>> >
>>
>> > Best of luck,
>>
>>
>> My more than two cents,
>>
>> Mblayo
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Adam Nelson via kictanet <
>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we're getting confused between 'ownership' and 'management' and
>>> 'oversight'.  The dot KE and dot UG tlds will always be owned by the
>>> governments of Kenya and Uganda respectively.  It would be almost
>>> impossible for the governments to dispose of their ownership of the tlds
>>> and even if they did, ICANN would surely allow the government to take them
>>> back.
>>>
>>> 'Management' can be delegated to a private entity and this is what the
>>> discussion is really about.  However, the 'management' is simply under the
>>> jurisdiction of the contract given to the manager which would be under
>>> Kenyan law in Kenya and Ugandan law in Uganda.  It's really not much
>>> different than the GoK giving a contract to a private company to run a
>>> parking lot next to the parliament building.  GoK can be sued within Kenyan
>>> courts for violating the contract but it's still under Kenyan law.
>>>
>>> 'Oversight' is the tricky issue of how the government intermediates its
>>> ownership with its desire for stewardship via good management of the
>>> resource that is beneficial to the country.  This is where the board
>>> becomes critical and we must be concerned about its makeup.  The goal of
>>> having a board is to get parliament and the executive branch farther away
>>> from an oversight role because they all know that this resource could
>>> really get devalued (which it already has).
>>>
>>> I remain confident that smart minds will prevail and we'll get a
>>> multistakeholder governance model for the 'oversight' role in Kenya - and
>>> hopefully in Uganda too.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Adam
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kili - Cloud for Africa: kili.io
>>> Musings: twitter.com/varud <https://twitter.com/varud>
>>> More Musings: varud.com
>>> About Adam: www.linkedin.com/in/adamcnelson
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Ali Hussein via kictanet <
>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mwendwa
>>>>
>>>> I think it's factually incorrect to say that Kenya looks to take .ke
>>>> private. I think the idea is to move it from the current status where the
>>>> regulator also sits on the board and directs the way KeNIC operates to its
>>>> rightful regulatory role.
>>>>
>>>> Of course I stand corrected on my assertions above.
>>>>
>>>> The .UG issue brings out again the earlier discussions. The main one
>>>> being whether the new KeNIC would be Multi-Stakeholder based or it would
>>>> move to a status where one stakeholder at the exclusion of others takes
>>>> over. That in my humble opinion would be unacceptable and the community
>>>> should resist it with all its got.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Ali Hussein
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, 15 October 2014, Mwendwa Kivuva via isoc <
>>>> isoc at lists.my.co.ke> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Uganda seems to want to go the .KE way (public ownership), while .KE
>>>>> wants to go the .UG way (private ownership). Are there any lessons
>>>>> the two registries can learn from each other?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/368-blogger-the-ug-debate-is-
>>>>> redelegation-necessary.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>> *There has been a lot said about the .ug ccTLD (Country Code Top Level
>>>>> Domain) management over the years and by the look of things we seem to be
>>>>> reaching the peak of this debate. *
>>>>>
>>>>> Legislators have been drawn into the debate and judging from what we
>>>>> hear them say, there is definitely a lot of misinformation going on. There
>>>>> is cause for concern when one comes across news headlines like, “A Private
>>>>> Firm Owns Uganda's Internet Domain Name” and MP Taaka's query that
>>>>> “Is Uganda safe considering that .UG as a domain name is privately
>>>>> owned?”
>>>>>
>>>>> For starters, a ccTLD is a two letter domain name extension that
>>>>> corresponds to a country (.ke – Kenya, .tz – Tanzania, .rw – Rwanda, .
>>>>> uk – United Kingdom) , territory or geographic location. So, to make
>>>>> things clear, .ug isn't a domain name as is being insinuated in the
>>>>> discussions going on in the august house.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the early 1990s at the start of the globalised internet age, ccTLDs
>>>>> were issued to various countries and for those that never had the capacity
>>>>> to manage them, help came from ICANN through various agencies. Uganda
>>>>> was one of those countries that never had the capacity and Randy Bush
>>>>> <http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/randy-bush> an Internet
>>>>> Pioneer and founder of the Network Startup Resource Centre (NSRC)
>>>>> <http://www.nsrc.org> volunteered to carry out the technical
>>>>> management of the .ug ccTLD. Around the same period, a then youthful
>>>>> and ambitious Ugandan Engineer, Charles Musisi
>>>>> <http://ug.linkedin.com/in/charlesi3c> had picked a lot of interest
>>>>> in the nascent internet technologies of the times. His interest led
>>>>> him to set up the first email service in Uganda (FIDO-NET) and as well join
>>>>> a group of internet pioneers on the African continent. This interest
>>>>> and exposure led him to pick interest in the management of the .ug
>>>>> ccTLD as far back as the mid 1990s. On application, he was assigned
>>>>> the administrative rights and Randy Bush continued to offer the technical
>>>>> management support as Charles' company then, Uganda Online (now called
>>>>> Infinity Computers and Communications Company Ltd - i3C) started developing
>>>>> local capacity to do the same. Eventually, he was able to wean off Randy
>>>>> Bush's support and his company took over full technical and administrative
>>>>> management of the ccTLD. Did he buy the .ug ccTLD as is alleged? NO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Around the same time, his colleagues in Kenya and Tanzania also
>>>>> undertook management of their countries' ccTLDs albeit with mixed
>>>>> results. Dr. Shem Ochuodho was eventually booted out of .ke ccTLD
>>>>> Management having failed to perform to the expectations of the community
>>>>> which led to the set up of KENIC <http://www.kenic.or.ke>. It is
>>>>> worth noting that Uganda Online was able to successfully commercialise the
>>>>> management of the .ug ccTLD and this is evidenced by the fact that
>>>>> the ccTLD has operated in a stable environment over the years without
>>>>> seeking any financial aid.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, like anything, change in the internet landscape will always
>>>>> necessitate changes in the supporting technologies and services. Currently,
>>>>> there has been a significant growth in the state's interest in ICT
>>>>> infrastructure and services provision. This has seen the country undertake
>>>>> numerous interventions like the roll out of the National Fibre Backbone,
>>>>> promotion of the Business Process Outsourcing, e-Government implementation
>>>>> among others. The .ug is also being looked at as one of those
>>>>> services that are likely to help fill the puzzle of ICT proliferation
>>>>> in Uganda.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Draft Policy Framework for the management of the .ug ccTLD has as
>>>>> its major objective, “to formalize management of .ug Country Code Top
>>>>> Level Domain Name and come up with a management framework that will ensure
>>>>> transparency and greater accountability towards the Internet community of
>>>>> Uganda and the rest of the Global Internet Community.”
>>>>>
>>>>> The current status-quo is characterised by:
>>>>> • Efficient assignment of domain names
>>>>> • Decent Support for technical issues
>>>>> • Uniform domain registration costs
>>>>> • Stable Domain Name System (DNS) services
>>>>> It is clear that i3C <http://www.i3c.co.ug> is performing well on the
>>>>> technical front and not much can be said in that regard. However, as a
>>>>> private company, it has limitations on what can be achieved especially if
>>>>> one asks the following questions;
>>>>> 1. What governance systems are in place for the .ug ccTLD as a
>>>>> national resource currently?
>>>>> 2. What policies and procedures are there for the issuance, renewal,
>>>>> and arbitration of domain related disputes?
>>>>> 3. If policies are present, who designed them and was there community
>>>>> participation?
>>>>> 4. What strategies are in place to promote the usage of .ug by
>>>>> nationals?
>>>>> 5. What universal access measures are in place to ensure that various
>>>>> sections of society aren't alienated on the basis of gender, rural/urban
>>>>> divides, youth, disability among others?
>>>>> 6. What measures are in place to ensure that the Government of Uganda
>>>>> (the custodian of Uganda's resources on behalf of the people) actively
>>>>> participates in influencing the direction of the .ug ccTLD?
>>>>> 7. What measures are in place to ensure that civil society can have
>>>>> its input/feedback into the .ug ccTLD management process?
>>>>>
>>>>> At the current pace, there are more gaps being created in the overall .
>>>>> ug management and the earlier they are addressed, the better. A quick
>>>>> look at the .ke ccTLD, one is able to get updated information on how
>>>>> many domains that are registered and active, standing at 30,156 domains
>>>>> with a target of 33,800 domains by the close of 2014. Not only is it hard
>>>>> to get accurate information on the number of domains registered and active
>>>>> at the .ug ccTLD but the last time I got a whiff, the estimate was
>>>>> 3000 domains and assuming the numbers have doubled since then, our next
>>>>> door neighbors are definitely rounding us up five times.
>>>>>
>>>>> For purposes of cross comparisons, this table reveals a couple of
>>>>> things;
>>>>>
>>>>> The Government of Uganda through the Ministry of ICT
>>>>> <http://www.ict.go.ug> has come out to crusade for the formation of
>>>>> the Uganda National Information Centre (ugNIC) a not for profit
>>>>> company comprising of representatives from government, Internet Service
>>>>> Providers, Civil Society/NGOs, consumers, infrastructure providers,
>>>>> academia and the business community. The ugNIC shall have the mandate
>>>>> to manage the operations of the .ug.
>>>>>
>>>>> According to the outlined functions for the ugNIC, it is worth noting
>>>>> that some issues were left out. It is vital that the company created should
>>>>> also undertake;
>>>>> • Marketing of the .ug ccTLD to win national appeal
>>>>> • Handling domain dispute resolution according to the set out
>>>>> guidelines and policies
>>>>>
>>>>> On the basis of this, it should therefore be clear that the following
>>>>> are mere myths:
>>>>> 1. That Charles Musisi <http://ug.linkedin.com/in/charlesi3c> or his
>>>>> company i3C <http://www.i3c.co.ug> OWN the .ug ccTLD
>>>>> 2. That the .ug ccTLD was assigned to a private company in bad faith.
>>>>> 3. That Government officials gave away the .ug ccTLD to a private
>>>>> entity.
>>>>>
>>>>> As an active member of the Internet Space in Uganda, some of the
>>>>> reasons why I support the proposed changes in the .ug ccTLD
>>>>> administration are;
>>>>> • Increased public accountability of the .ug resource
>>>>> • Increased community participation in determining the future of the .
>>>>> ug resource
>>>>> • The need to separate the Technical and Administrative management of
>>>>> the .ug resource. While i3C may have performed well handling the
>>>>> Technical aspects, it has fallen short on the Administrative front.
>>>>> • The lack of a well incentivised reseller programme has greatly
>>>>> hindered the promotion of the .ug ccTLD locally.
>>>>> • The need for serious promotion and marketing of the .ug ccTLD
>>>>> • Opportunity for using Government resources to upskill the technical
>>>>> managers of the .ug ccTLD.
>>>>> • Having witnessed companies fold, what happens if i3C closed shop
>>>>> out of the blue? It happened to Enron
>>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron> (One of the largest energy
>>>>> companies in the world during the last century). Risking the .ug ccTLD
>>>>> resource to this level can have a massive impact on the nation in case such
>>>>> a scenario plays out.
>>>>>
>>>>> As the Ugandan Internet community, we need to be careful to avoid the
>>>>> misinformation that is flying around and also ensure that we lend our
>>>>> support in a manner that will put national benefit at the forefront while
>>>>> not forgetting the patriotic work people like Engineer Charles Musisi
>>>>> <http://ug.linkedin.com/in/charlesi3c> have rendered this nation in
>>>>> the past.
>>>>>
>>>>> Twitter: @wirejames <https://twitter.com/wirejames>
>>>>> Email: lunghabo [at] gmail [dot] com
>>>>> ______________________
>>>>> Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya
>>>>> twitter.com/lordmwesh
>>>>>
>>>>> "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk
>>>>> on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ali Hussein
>>>>
>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> kictanet mailing list
>>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>>>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>>>>
>>>> Unsubscribe or change your options at
>>>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/adam%40varud.com
>>>>
>>>> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
>>>> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
>>>> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
>>>> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>>>>
>>>> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
>>>> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth,
>>>> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
>>>> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> kictanet mailing list
>>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>>>
>>> Unsubscribe or change your options at
>>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/blongwe%40gmail.com
>>>
>>> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
>>> for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
>>> regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
>>> sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>>>
>>> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
>>> online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth,
>>> share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do
>>> not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20141015/30fa969b/attachment.htm>