[AfrICANN-discuss] .Africa project communique (Task force)

[McTim]

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Nebster <nebster11 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Badru ,McTeam-

<snip>


> To shade additional light to what ICANN guide book says, for geographic
> names, the approval for the license comes from governments and not the
> technical community.

I wouldn't call it a license, per se...appprovals must come from
relevant governments, but it's not as formal as a license.

I would encourage all those interested to read:
http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-clean-28may10-en.pdf

Sections 1.1.2.8 String Contention subsection 2.2.1.4 of Module 2 for more
information.

> It only refers that it is good if the "organization is
> known by the communities".   Additionally it says, any rejection by a
> minimum 2 governments will stop the process, no need to go further.  That
> equally applies for AU application if they in fact decide to go forward.  We
> do not need ICANN to do the rejection for us.

If we don't get our act together and do ONE proposal, I think that it
would be trivial
for one party to get more than one gov't in the region to object.

>
> ICANN, despite McTim's comments have not right to reject an application
> based on competition.

I believe this quote from the above url shows that you are incorrect
on this matter:

"If there is more than one application for a string
representing a certain geographical name as described in
this section, and the applications are considered complete
(i.e., have requisite government approvals), the
applications will be suspended pending resolution by the
applicants."

>It is a bid system they set up themselves, so ICANN

There will be no bidding/auction for geo-names.


> should and will encourage competition, that is the whole idea behind
> bidding, seletion of the best proposal.  Therefore, Africa should solve its
> own issues, as for ICANN will not stop any competition.  Its position is to
> select a proposal that meets the stated requirement.  So Africa should not
> combine its proposal because of fear of rejection by ICANN,


See quote above.

<snip>

> Also, from my point of view, it is a fact that the African Union can not get
> in commercial activities of domain name, as they do not have a mandate over
> it, even if they have asked for it.  Maybe one needs to understand the role
> of our continental organization.

but DCA claims to have a mandate from the AU to do .africa
(which has since been nullified if the letter posted to Kictanet list
some months back is to be believed), so I'm not exactly understanding
your position here.  Either the AU is the appropriate multi-governmental
body to approve who runs .africa or they aren't.  You can't have it both ways!

That said, from what I see of the current
> framed picture, they are the smoke screen behind whoever wants to do
> .africa.  Therefore, to answer to your comment Badru, Whoever is behind the
> frame should be joining what has already started and not reinvent the
> wheel.

Applying that logic to Dr. Nii's quote "The second was
www.dotafrica.org long before DCA." means that by your own argument,
it is DCA who is re-inventing wheels.


> As it has been said many time, all is fair in love and war, so DCA
> will continue to execute its mandate and satisfy ICANN's requirement.

Mandate from who/whom?  Can you show us documentation of this mandate?

Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel