Members this happens to be my final say on this .UG issue because the trend of emails that I have been reading have been getting more and more personal. I find it a fallacy that when one offers their position on an issue and strongly defends it, he/she is labelled all sorts of names. I was shocked to the marrow by the statement made by Noah Sematimba in his posting where he states: ***** begin quote ***** I remember clearly this discussion being raised not just once but
> multiple times and there being no traction. Now once again it is being > raised and made to appear as something all the community is pushing > when there has never actually been any such consensus from what I have > seen from previous discussions. > > This makes me begin to question the motives of the people involved in > this and whether they are as altruistic as they try to make them seem. ***** end quote ***** I always thought that we would maintain level headed arguments and avoid resorting to superstitious insinuations on such mailing lists but it seems like some habits die hard. On this note, I do advise UCC and all those interested in seeing this issue being brought to rest to digest the sense that has been exchanged in this debate and call for some physical consultative meetings of the ICT fraternity if possible to come up with a conclusion on the way forward. Some people seem to think that I am a CFI hater (which am not as a matter of fact). I have learnt how to bear all sorts of accusations due to some of the seemingly dissenting views I tend to take on various subjects and I assure you that I will never stop to speak my mind on something which I have a strong position on. Another vocal member of this mailing list bluntly told me that he pulled a plug on discussing this .ug issue way back after also being accused of being a CFI hater. Interestingly those labelling some of us that way do not seem to realise that some of us have had a very good relationship with the proprietor of CFI that spans over a decade and the situation has never changed. So, being the type that doesn't believe in trying to have the 'holier than thou' attitude, I will make it categorically clear that my pursuit for change is not based on a need to kill someone's business but a need to see the .ug take its rightful place in Ugandan society. I promise that I will always be available to debate on this issue in any other fora other than the mailing list because I believe that alot of what people are saying is steered by the fact that they are interacting with 'bits and bytes'. As for UCC, thank you for availing a template for discussion and I am supportive of the process that has been relaunched and any time you need my help, feel free to call upon me. I can now see that our past and current efforts yearning for change are not going un-noticed. I sign out guys. Wire On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 23:16 +0200, Noah Sematimba wrote: > On Jul 6, 2010, at 8:26 PM, Wire James wrote: > > > Noah > > > > The trend this issue has taken cannot be reversed. You just need to > > embrace Govt influence however minimal or much. The writing is on > > the wall and we have no choice as Ugandans to work out a Public > > Private Partnership with Govt on this issue. Isnt the UIXP operating > > very well with UCC's assistance? Why dont you want them to > > participate in this process too? > > Actually what I find strange is that the people who have been > advocating for a change in the .UG ccTLD management first tried to > build consensus from the community and when this failed, they figured > that lobbying the regulator to intervene under the guise of there > being a serious problem that needed to be fixed before the whole > thing came crashing down would work for them. > > I remember clearly this discussion being raised not just once but > multiple times and there being no traction. Now once again it is being > raised and made to appear as something all the community is pushing > when there has never actually been any such consensus from what I have > seen from previous discussions. > > This makes me begin to question the motives of the people involved in > this and whether they are as altruistic as they try to make them seem. > > On the issue of the UIXP, UCC actually does not have any say in > decisions concerning the running of the IX except to advise on what is > legally acceptable under their regulatory regime and their gracious > donation of space and power for the IX. What is being suggested in > this proposal goes way beyond that and honestly I would love to keep > the UIXP out of this particular discussion. > > Noah. > > > ________________________ > Visit the I-Network website - www.i-network.or.ug > Follow I-Network on Twitter: http://twitter.com/inetwork > The I-Network Dgroup is a platform for ICT Knowledge Sharing > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit [web site]( http://d2.dgroups.org/iicd/i-network/ ) > Click [here]( mailto:[email protected] ) to unsubscribe > The email is intended only for the recipients. The owners of the Dgroups > cannot be held responsible for the contents of the email message. > > > > > **************************** Wire James ICT Consultant and Strategist - Specialist on African ICT Blog: http://www.computerworld.co.ug/blogs/wire-james Making IT work for you
_______________________________________________ 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. ---------------------------------------
