Presentation on theme: ".KE Case Study AfTLD Meeting 24th June 2006 Marrakech, Morocco Presented by: Michuki Mwangi"— Presentation transcript:
.KE Case Study AfTLD Meeting 24th June 2006 Marrakech, Morocco Presented by: Michuki Mwangi Email: email@example.com
Introduction Operations of core internet were managed by individuals involved in Internet development. In Africa Internet introduced through projects like NSRC. Projects promoted delegation of ccTLD to managers & individuals deemed representative of local internet community
Delegated Technical POC were based in foreign countries due to; –Lack of technical expertise and skills –Lack of reliable internet infrastructure –Lack of general Internet awareness.
Rationale Phenomenal growth of Internet in Africa in the last decade Reliable Internet connectivity & availability technical expertise Therefore need to repatriate ccTLD’s
Background Was delegated by Jon Postel in 1993 to; –Dr. Shem Ochuodho – Admin POC –Randy Bush – Tech POC Acting in a voluntary capacity Increased Internet growth in late 90’s Domain name registration demand outstretched the volunteers capacity. Need to re-delegate to a multi-stakeholder organization
FOCUS Composition of the organization Constitution Objectives Support & Funding Sustainability
1. Composition of Organization Define Members Define role of members Public-Private partnership (PPP) Non-profit Organization
Defining members Who is the local Internet community? Organizational representation – To represent specific Internet community groups Formal appointment of directors to the board.
As a result … Government – CCK, GITS Academia - KENET Civil Society – KIS, NTF-Ecom ISP Association – TESPOK The acting.KE Administrative Contact
Role of members Government – Facilitator –Neutral and trusted –Protect the public interests –Support & Funding Private sector – implementers –Have the Technical skills and expertise to implement –Business oriented – will ensure sustainability of the project –Protect private sector interests –Support & Funding
2. Constitution Full Board membership Associate membership Govt to have majority seats = 4 Private sector seats = 3 Chairman of board from Private Sector Rotation of full board members with associate members. No voting – resolution by consensus.
3. Objectives Manage and Operate ccTLD Develop and Promote use of Name space Use of surplus revenue to develop ICT’s in disadvantaged areas Represent “Local Internet community” in both local and International conferences Capacity building through internship programmes
4. Support & Funding Open public forum – All Members Initial seed money for technical implementation – Govt. Incubation period – Govt. Technical expertise – Private Sect. Training – Private Sect. External support from established ccTLD’s Logo & Tag phrase – Private Sect.
5. Sustainability Private sector business model approach –Level of fees for domain names –Minimal operational cost – Registry/Registrar Model –Internship program Internet Connectivity – Sponsored –Members to sponsor Internet links.
Potential Pitfalls! ccTLD is a National Resource. –National ccTLD’s are monopolies – Like any monopoly few friends, many adversaries –Due to size of registries and other limiting factors there is little or no money to be made. –Though it’s a monopoly there are alternatives i.e.COM (TLD’s) –Well established TLD’s provides stiff competition to startup ccTLDs.
Pitfalls … (Cont’d) Location of Registry; –Neutral location – University/Govt –Consider incubation and running costs Voting - Voting is not Consensus
Champions & Drivers! Require Govt champion – Michael Katundu –Lobby Govt’s support –Lobby ICANN GAC for acknowledgement Need Private sector champion – Richard Bell –Build consensus among private sector –Chair the meetings.
Conclusion ccTLD is a national resource that can be explored to promote ICT development Management and operations should be modeled to be self sustaining for success It is not rocket science but can appear to be. Technical Implementation is not the headache.
Conclusion …(Cont’d) Consensus is easily achievable when there is compromise The end result should be a “Win - Win” scenario Its our experience and approach – May NOT work for you. A home grown solution will always work best.