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.
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@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@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community