Le 20 juin 2016 à 14:59, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@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@icann.org on
behalf of Nigel Roberts" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org
on behalf of nigel@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@itforchange.net
<mailto:parminder@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@itforchange.net>parminder@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@itforchange.net>parminder@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@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>

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

       _______________________________________________
       Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
       Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
       <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@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@jordancarter.org.nz <mailto:jordan@jordancarter.org.nz>

   _______________________________________________
   Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
   Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
   <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>

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

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community