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@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@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
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno