Roelof, Is it not perhaps a little early to say this, in particular since there is no "outcome" yet? As anyone, including that Knowitall from that third rate University is well aware of, I have repeatedly stated that Sockpuppy's case has no merits whatsoever. She must however be allowed to try and make her case, and in particular must she be allowed to apply for protection against irreversible actions to be taken (against her). Which she has done by way of an Ex-Parte Temporary Restraining Order and schh TROs have a vastly reduced requirement with regards to merit. The merits have not been assessed yet in the case of DCA vs ICANN, though the (same) (alleged) merits have been resoundingly rejected in the DCA vs ZACR case. So, I think one should let the matter run its course. One might just be surprised about the wisdom of the Court. And an even more resounding rejection of Sockpuppy's case will surely afford opportunity for profound articles in reputed magazine. greetings, el On 2016-06-20 14:59 , Roelof Meijer wrote:
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 [...]