[CCWG-ACCT] .Africa Preliminary Injunction

[parminder]

On Wednesday 13 April 2016 09:50 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Isn't it interesting that a US court is able to determine that
> delegating .Africa is harmful to Africa internet users even though AU
> affirms otherwise.
>

Extremely interesting, and completely unacceptable! US independence was
fought on the slogan "no taxation without representation", which is same
as "no legal authority without representation"

Unfortunately, however, decades on, we see an erosion of democratic
value and spirits, when one would expect us to be making progress. We
seem ready today to accept legal authority without representation. 
Unfortunately, a lot of non US people join in to accept increasing
application of US jurisdiction over an increasing extent of global
affairs. With the domain system itself being used as a powerful new
instrument of such extra-territorial (illegitimate) jurisdiction - even
more so now than ever before with the new gTLDs being made easily
available.

Last month I wrote this oped in an top Indian daily
<http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/why-the-internet-isnt-just-free-yet/article8386172.ece>
about how without sorting out the jurisdiction issue - and moving to an
international jurisdiction - oversight transition achieves very little
if anything.

> Things like this is what makes some to always raise ICANN jurisdiction
> issue. Nevertheless, I will recognise the fact that any other
> jurisdiction court could also act in a similar manner.
>

No, an international jurisdiction and legitimate institutions of its
enforcement would genuinely and legitimately uphold global public
interest. To repeat, US courts have no locus standi or right to do so,
and would especially fail when one of the contesting party would be US
based, which is a kind of case we can expect to also come up sooner than
later, and about which all of us seem to be in complete denial... A
solid example of such denial is that no stress test on this issue/
aspect has been done in the oversight transition process despite
repeated requests including by me.

parminder

> That said, I had thought there would be indications on what date the
> next hearing will be (to ascertain the supposed fairness)
>
> Regards
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On 13 Apr 2016 5:03 p.m., "Nigel Roberts" <nigel at channelisles.net
> <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>> wrote:
>
>     The 'public interest' is exactly what it says.. The global public.
>
>     He refers SPECIFICALLY to the African internet users' public
>     interest in the judgment.
>
>
>     As follows:
>
>         On balance, the Court finds it more prejudicial to
>         the African community, and the international community in
>         general, if the delegation of .Africa is made
>         prior to a determination on the fairness of the process by
>         which it was delegated.
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160413/34381099/attachment.html>