[CCWG-ACCT] .Africa Preliminary Injunction

[Seun Ojedeji]

We can disagree on this Milton, I never mentioned public interest in my
statement! My views were derived from the buildup and not the final
conclusion. Look at the second to the last paragraph of section D. I quote
relevant part below:

"....ICANN argues that a delay in delegating .Africa will prejudice the
African community’s efforts
to participate in the Internet economy and strengthen their technology
sectors....",

Then the court says:

"....The AUC’s relationship with ZACR, and its interest in preventing the
delay of issuing rights to .Africa creates a conflict of
interest.Therefore, on this point, the
Court accords little weight to the Yedaly Declaration ..."

SO: The AUC supported ZACR (as part of the application requirement), I find
it quite unfortunate that such further view from AUC would be found to
create conflict of interest. If AUC did not write such, who else should do
so; I mean which other source of interest from Africa will not form
conflict in this matter?

>
  "...On balance, the Court finds it more *prejudicial to
the African community*....., if the delegation of .Africa is made...."
>
SO:  That is the section that provoked my previous view and I still stand
by it; Who is the US court to conclude that it will be harmful to Africa
community even when the AUC is pushing otherwise. This process has just
taken too long than necessary.

Nevertheless, I will stop here and look forward to the outcome of the case
filed by ICANN as indicated by Paul.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 13 Apr 2016 5:34 p.m., "Mueller, Milton L" <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> Seun
>
> The court does not make a ruling on the public interest of Africans. It
> makes a ruling on the right of DCA to obtain an injunction against ICANN to
> stop it from delegating the name. Its approach to the public interest in
> this case is that “the public has an interest in the fair and transparent
> application process that grants gTLD rights.” This pertains to ICANN
> globally, not to Africans specifically.
>
>
>
> In other words, the court is not ruling about whether .Africa being run by
> DCA or the AUC is better, it is deciding that ICANN’s process for making
> the decision was unfair and biased.
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun
> Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:20 PM
> *To:* Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net>
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] .Africa Preliminary Injunction
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160413/030e68fd/attachment.html>