[CCWG-ACCT] The Economist | A virtual turf war: The scramble for .africa
Roelof Meijer
Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl
Mon Jun 20 13:59:22 UTC 2016
Well, yes. But. We wanted (legal) enforceability, and got it.
And the .africa outcome illustrates (apart from the neo-colonalization
perspective) that <rule of law> and <justice> do not guarantee the <right>
outcome of such a process
Roelof
On 19-06-16 12:54, "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on
behalf of Nigel Roberts" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
on behalf of nigel at channelisles.net> wrote:
>Welcome to the world of competing interests, advanced to the maxiumn by
>all lawful means.
>
>This is why we need strong accountability, and respect for human rights,
>embedded in ICANN's culture, rather than imposed from the outside by a
>review tribunal.
>
>On 19/06/16 10:55, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>> Jordan and all,
>>
>> You are right that the ICANN accountability is an essential thing, and
>> that all concerned parties should have the opportunity to challenge
>> ICANN for any violation of its bylaws and articles.
>>
>> But in this case of dot africa, the issue is too obvious that
>> dotconnectafrica can¹t get the support of the African community
>> including Governments. they have at the contrary strong opposition of
>> some of them. And the applicant guide book is too clear on this point:
>> any Geographic application should gain, inter alias, the explicit
>> support of the government(s).
>>
>> All the steps for a positive end of the application of ZACR (officially
>> tasked by the African Union to apply for dot africa on their behalf)
>> were accomplished and the decision of the ICANN was justified.
>>
>> dotconnectafrica argued through the IRP that ICANN wasn¹t fair in its
>> decision. The IRP process took too longtime because one of the panel
>> members passed away. There wasn¹t a maximum time for the IRP
>> consideration, and that is one of the issues we must tackle in the IRP
>> sub-group about IRP. After the late replacement of the dead member of
>> the panel, everything was to be restarted. this longtime gives rooms for
>> every possible gaming. dont forget that dotconnectafrica has paid a huge
>> amont of money in advertising, communication and sponsoring prior to
>> the opening of the new gTLD round. the result of the IRP for them is
>>vital.
>>
>> ICANN applied the decision of the IRP and dotconnectafrica lost the
>> geographic panel evaluation. Now, they went to the court to delay more
>> and more the delegation of dot africa.
>>
>> In the mean time, the Africans are prevented from having their
>> continental TLD because this game is continuing even if the case is too
>> clear. Where is the public interest here? where is the interest of
>> Africa? As African, I¹m too disappointed because we are the hostage of a
>> system that privilege the private interest over the African community
>>one.
>>
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>----
>> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*
>> Executive Director
>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
>> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>> +216 52 385 114
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>----
>>
>>
>>> Le 19 juin 2016 à 08:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday 19 June 2016 12:11 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Parminder,
>>>>
>>>> As an African, I would tend to agree with your point and wish that
>>>> your conclusion point was the case (as a reactive measure). However
>>>> as you know, we have discussed this extensively in the past (on
>>>> different fora) and we found that the means to the end of such is so
>>>> complicated and the end itself would ultimately create a govt lead
>>>> ICANN which i certainly don't want.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If ICANN functioning under California non profit law - made by
>>> government - and subject to US jurisdiction - also made of and by
>>> governments (and governments alone) - can continue to be seem and
>>> treated as a multistakeholder organisation, to your and others'
>>> satisfaction, there is simply no reason why ICANN cannot be and
>>> function similarly under international jurisdiction, created by
>>> international law.
>>>
>>> Your preferring US law/ jurisdiction over international law/
>>> jurisdiction is, simply and nothing more than, a statement of your
>>> preferring the US jurisdiction over international jurisdiction (
>>> which, while you have a right to your choices, I consider
>>> democratically unfortunate). None is less complex that the other.
>>> There are hundreds of international organisations functioning under
>>> international law, and so can ICANN. And if ICANN has some special
>>> contexts and needs, that would be met by relevant innovations in
>>> international law, but not by a democratic regression to subjecting
>>> the world to the US law. Democracy is precious, and people have done
>>> much to achieve it. Please dont treat it lightly, citing
>>> technicalities against it. That is extremely unfortunate. Sorry for
>>> the analogy but it directly applies; every tyrant/ dictator is prone
>>> to argue that democracy is messy, and difficult and, as you say,
>>> complicated. But such an argument does not carry, does it.
>>>
>>> To call an ICANN which is constituted under US law, and fully
>>> answerable to US jurisdiction (meaning US government, its all
>>> branches), as fully multistakeholder;
>>>
>>> and, at the same time, an ICANN functioning exactly in the same
>>> manner, but now under international law and jurisdiction, as (to quote
>>> you) becoming a government let ICANN
>>>
>>> is simply to make a misleading statement.
>>>
>>> Although, the fallacy contained in it is as clear as daylight, among
>>> status quoists circles this statement or argument continues to be made
>>> and re-made. But, for other than the fully converted and therefore
>>> impervious to simple logic, and demands of that high value of
>>> democracy, it takes away nothing from the my arguments regarding the
>>> unfairness of ICANN being subject to US jurisdiction, and the urgent
>>> need to move it to international jurisdiction, which you are right, I
>>> have often made on various fora, and will keep making. It is a
>>> political act.
>>>
>>> regards, parminder
>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Sent from my LG G4
>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>>
>>>> On 19 Jun 2016 07:28, "parminder"
>>>> <<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sunday 19 June 2016 11:31 AM, Jordan Carter wrote:
>>>>> I may have missed something, Parminder, but isn't it a plus
>>>>> rather than a negative for ICANN accountability that process
>>>>> errors can be appealed and the company held to account for them?
>>>>
>>>> Jordan
>>>>
>>>> In may make ICANN accountable, but to a system that is
>>>> unaccountable to the global public, and is only accountable to
>>>> the US public (there could even be cases where these two could be
>>>> in partial conflict) - that in sum is the jurisdiction issue.
>>>> ICANN accountability issue is different, though linked, bec it
>>>> has to be accountable, but to the right system, which itself is
>>>> accountable to the global public. Different 'layers' of
>>>> accountability are implicated here, as people in IG space will
>>>> like to say!
>>>>
>>>> Here the issue is, a US court has no right to (exclusively)
>>>> adjudicate the rights of the African people, bec African people
>>>> had no part in making or legitimising the system that the US
>>>> court is a part of. Dont you see what problem we will be facing
>>>> if the US court says that fairness of process or whatever demands
>>>> that .africa goes to DCA. If you were an African, what would you
>>>> feel?
>>>>
>>>> An ICANN under international law will be subject to only an
>>>> international judicial process, which Africa is equally a part
>>>> of, and gives legitimacy to.
>>>>
>>>> parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jordan
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19 June 2016 at 07:26, parminder
>>>>> <<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sunday 19 June 2016 04:13 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Economist | A virtual turf war: The scramble for
>>>>>> .africa
>>>>>>
>>>>>><http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21700661-lawyer
>>>>>>s-california-are-denying-africans-their-own-domain-scramble?frsc=dg%7
>>>>>>Cd>http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21700661-lawy
>>>>>>ers-california-are-denying-africans-their-own-domain-scramble?frsc=dg
>>>>>>%7Cd
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that this fact is being discovered now, but it still is
>>>>> the simplest and clearest proof that US jurisdiction over
>>>>> ICANN's policy processes and decisions is absolutely
>>>>> untenable. Either the US makes a special legal provision
>>>>> unilaterally foregoing judicial, legislative and executive
>>>>> jurisdiction over ICANN policy functions, or the normal
>>>>> route of ICANN's incorporation under international law is
>>>>> taken, making ICANN an international organisation under
>>>>> international law, and protected from US jurisdiction under
>>>>> a host country agreement.
>>>>>
>>>>> parminder
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul Rosenzweig
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jordan Carter
>>>>> Wellington, New Zealand
>>>>>
>>>>> +64 21 442 649 <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649>
>>>>> jordan at jordancarter.org.nz <mailto:jordan at jordancarter.org.nz>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>> <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
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list