.KE Case Study
AfTLD Meeting 24th June 2006
Marrakech, Morocco
Presented by: Michuki Mwangi
Email: michuki@kenic.or.ke
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.
Thank you!.