[CCWG-ACCT] The Economist | A virtual turf war: The scramble for .africa
Tijani BEN JEMAA
tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn
Mon Jun 20 15:53:36 UTC 2016
+1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
+216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Le 20 juin 2016 à 14:59, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl> a écrit :
>
> 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 <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on
> behalf of Nigel Roberts" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
> on behalf of nigel at channelisles.net <mailto: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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <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/20160620/59d0c670/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list