PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON LICENSING AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR DOT KE DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY SERVICES
Dear Listers Firstly apologies for cross-posting. I propose we hold an online discussion in this critical resource issue starting Monday, the 19th of January 2014. This should give all interested parties time to review the documents provided by CCK on this issue. For ease of reference these can be found at:- http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/current.html However before we start this discussion and the reason I propose Monday is because I feel that there are several issues that probably need to be addressed even before this whole process starts and that the community should be cognizant of:- 1. During last year's KeNIC AGM the board promised to share with us the consultancy findings that would come up with this framework towards commercializing the registry services beyond KeNIC. We are still awaiting that paper and I feel that the paper is integral to this discussion as it would provide good background information that informed the reason behind CCK taking a certain regulatory framework as opposed to another - I'm referring here to the fact that there are several directions this could go for example The South African Model as opposed to the UK Model or the Australian one..I guess we can delve deeper during the discussion. 2. The documents are silent about the fate of KeNIC (unless I missed it). What will happen to it? Who will be the recipient of the assets? How are they going to be shared seeing that it is a PPP where CCK is not the only stakeholder. 3. Has the CCK formally informed ICANN/IANA of the intention for Re-Delegation? This is a major process and we must line up our ducks properly so that we are not caught flat footed. The stakeholders MUST also be told how this process would work to ensure mitigation of risks. 4. Lastly, I would like to commend the team that put this together and to urge listers (lurkers please engage) to contribute without fear or favour or after this process is over Forever keep your peace. Ali Hussein +254 0770 906375 / 0713 601113 "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad
I support you Ali. If we don't engage, this critical resource might go the PANG way, and we will be left licking our paws. I propose we ask questions and get best practice from other registries. Example of questions we will ask are; why is KENIC's PPP used as a good working example the world over? Why did South Africa move their registry from private hands into the much emulated Kenic model? Why is Uganda clamouring for change of .ug from private hands into a community model? We will definately have an interesting debate, and concrete recommendations. We will need at least two moderators. Maybe Ali and GG. Regards On 15/01/2014, Ali Hussein <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Listers
Firstly apologies for cross-posting.
I propose we hold an online discussion in this critical resource issue starting Monday, the 19th of January 2014. This should give all interested parties time to review the documents provided by CCK on this issue. For ease of reference these can be found at:-
http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/current.html
However before we start this discussion and the reason I propose Monday is because I feel that there are several issues that probably need to be addressed even before this whole process starts and that the community should be cognizant of:-
1. During last year's KeNIC AGM the board promised to share with us the consultancy findings that would come up with this framework towards commercializing the registry services beyond KeNIC. We are still awaiting that paper and I feel that the paper is integral to this discussion as it would provide good background information that informed the reason behind CCK taking a certain regulatory framework as opposed to another - I'm referring here to the fact that there are several directions this could go for example The South African Model as opposed to the UK Model or the Australian one..I guess we can delve deeper during the discussion.
2. The documents are silent about the fate of KeNIC (unless I missed it). What will happen to it? Who will be the recipient of the assets? How are they going to be shared seeing that it is a PPP where CCK is not the only stakeholder.
3. Has the CCK formally informed ICANN/IANA of the intention for Re-Delegation? This is a major process and we must line up our ducks properly so that we are not caught flat footed. The stakeholders MUST also be told how this process would work to ensure mitigation of risks.
4. Lastly, I would like to commend the team that put this together and to urge listers (lurkers please engage) to contribute without fear or favour or after this process is over Forever keep your peace.
Ali Hussein
+254 0770 906375 / 0713 601113
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
-- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know
Thanks Kivuva. Listers, please take time to review the documents so we can have a healthy engage to next week. One other thing I need to mention and CCK needs to take into consideration is the fact that sometimes these public discussion forums are viewed with a lot of skepticism. This is because we don't know of any laid down procedures on how these contributions are then assimilated/rejected into the final document. What I'm basically saying is that we don't want this to turn into a PR exercise and sort of get an 'endorsement' from the community without understanding the underlying rules of engagement. Case in point is the very public and on face value 'successful' public engagement on the ITRs preceding WCIT12. We know how that turned out..So an assurance from CCK will definitely go along way in opening up the discussion. Please feel free to voice any preliminary critical issues before Monday. Lastly, it would also be good to get an opinion on this from KICTA, KITOS, DRAKE, TESPOK and other stakeholders official positions. Regards Ali Hussein +254 0770 906375 / 0713 601113 "I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein Sent from my iPad
On Jan 16, 2014, at 7:26 AM, Kivuva <[email protected]> wrote:
I support you Ali. If we don't engage, this critical resource might go the PANG way, and we will be left licking our paws.
I propose we ask questions and get best practice from other registries. Example of questions we will ask are; why is KENIC's PPP used as a good working example the world over? Why did South Africa move their registry from private hands into the much emulated Kenic model? Why is Uganda clamouring for change of .ug from private hands into a community model?
We will definately have an interesting debate, and concrete recommendations. We will need at least two moderators. Maybe Ali and GG.
Regards
On 15/01/2014, Ali Hussein <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Listers
Firstly apologies for cross-posting.
I propose we hold an online discussion in this critical resource issue starting Monday, the 19th of January 2014. This should give all interested parties time to review the documents provided by CCK on this issue. For ease of reference these can be found at:-
http://www.cck.go.ke/links/consultations/current.html
However before we start this discussion and the reason I propose Monday is because I feel that there are several issues that probably need to be addressed even before this whole process starts and that the community should be cognizant of:-
1. During last year's KeNIC AGM the board promised to share with us the consultancy findings that would come up with this framework towards commercializing the registry services beyond KeNIC. We are still awaiting that paper and I feel that the paper is integral to this discussion as it would provide good background information that informed the reason behind CCK taking a certain regulatory framework as opposed to another - I'm referring here to the fact that there are several directions this could go for example The South African Model as opposed to the UK Model or the Australian one..I guess we can delve deeper during the discussion.
2. The documents are silent about the fate of KeNIC (unless I missed it). What will happen to it? Who will be the recipient of the assets? How are they going to be shared seeing that it is a PPP where CCK is not the only stakeholder.
3. Has the CCK formally informed ICANN/IANA of the intention for Re-Delegation? This is a major process and we must line up our ducks properly so that we are not caught flat footed. The stakeholders MUST also be told how this process would work to ensure mitigation of risks.
4. Lastly, I would like to commend the team that put this together and to urge listers (lurkers please engage) to contribute without fear or favour or after this process is over Forever keep your peace.
Ali Hussein
+254 0770 906375 / 0713 601113
"I fear the day technology will surpass human interaction. The world will have a generation of idiots". ~ Albert Einstein
Sent from my iPad
-- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know _______________________________________________ isoc mailing list [email protected] http://orion.my.co.ke/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/isoc
participants (2)
-
Ali Hussein -
Kivuva