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
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@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 12:20 PM
To: Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>
Cc: accountability-cross-community@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 typosOn 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