[CCWG-ACCT] .Africa Preliminary Injunction

[Nigel Roberts]

Do you know what 'without prejudice' actually means?

It's a procedural legal term which means that the contents of your 
letter or other communication, if sent within the context of a genuine 
effort at settling a controversy by mutual discussion, cannot be used 
against you before the court.

Its close cousin, 'without prejudice save as to costs' or a Calderbank 
letter means it can't be used against you on the topic of liability (but 
can be used to screw you on costs if you are found liable).

ICANN tried to 'oust the jurisdiction of the courts' in the Guidebook.

The Courts (in all countries) generally do not like this. Any such 
restriction of access to the judicial system has to be reasonable and 
proportionate.

What the Court said here is that ICANN tried to absolve itself, for the 
future, for all purposes, of all, including its own willful ones.

This goes far beyond what is allowed, and should never have made it in 
to the Guidebook.

Furthermore, those who naively believed (or as you appear, to continue 
to believe) that this was in any way right or proper should take heed.



On 13/04/16 17:45, Barrack Otieno wrote:
> Precisely Seun,
>
> The wise say Justice delayed is Justice denied , without prejudice i
> would like to understand from colleagues who are familiar with the
> applicant guidebook how applicants can ignore the fact that they
> signed against taking legal action on ICANN and the court finds their
> actions to be ok, is this a weakness within the new gTLD process (
> applicants guidebook) or do we have loopholes within the ICANN bylaws
> that can be exploited?, i think it is an important point of reflection
> as we move forward with the transition.
>
> Regards
>
> On 4/13/16, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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> 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
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>>
>>
>
>