[AfrICANN-discuss] Fwd: information - .africa string related claim - lies

[McTim]

Hi Lerato,

Unfortunately, I'm even more confused now.

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Lerato Mamboleo <lerato.ma at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear All-
>
> I would like to make few points for the record:
>
> 1 - I believe this letter that is circulating has been addressed by DCA to AU immediately after DCA has received it and copied to the relevant authorities.

I don't think that is in dispute, is it?  If not, why bring it up?


>
> Additionally our response to AU is communicated publicly on DCA website. www.dotconnectafrica.org.

this is not in dispute either, is it?


>
> DCA is not obliged to post all internal communications on our site that which we manage with our various endorsers, as this is work in progress.

I've not seen anything in this thread that alluded to that, if you
have, could you point it out to me?

I for one, would love to see the original "mandate" from the AU to
DCA.....Could you post it please?


>
> 2- To response to earlier comment by Dr Yassin, on the AUC Deputy, there seems to be a great confusion with our Continental organization on how .africa should be handled.

It seems they have decided the way forward now, - a Task Force.


>
> Just to give benefit of doubt and not speak on behalf - a Deputy who may have been told on how the process should be.
>
> 3- The decision still remains in ICANN's hand and not African Union. AUC or AU  is not going to bypass international rules to be the arbitrator for the process. ICANN has published this process in the guidebook, which apply across the world. We cannot expect special treatment for Africa and DCA as a major player in this application process, will insist to stick to the rules.

Well, yes, and the proposed rules state:

"In the case of an application for a string appearing
on either of the lists above, documentation of
support will be required from at least 60% of the
respective national governments in the region, and
there may be no more than one written statement
of objection to the application from relevant
governments in the region and/or public authorities
associated with the continent or the region."

So it would make sense that one would try to have the
continent-wide body try to get some consensus around this issue, no?

What really confuses me most is DCA's many prior claims to a mandate
from the AU, but now you say the AU will not be "arbitrator for the process."

I suggest that you cannot have it both ways, can you?


>
> 4- DCA is in continuous communication with the African Union and positively engaged with the Chairman’s office, where DCA relieved its endorsement

What does this mean?



to provide clarity to this confusion; unfortunately DCA has also been
busy on the ground delivering, since AU even during a recent meeting
has assured us that none of the letters they have issued should stop
us from continuing our work (meeting minutes can be provided).

Please do provide for clarity.

>
> 5-The posting by DCA for the ICANN Board seat 15 was done at the appropriate forum,

appropriate forum, inappropriate content.  Really, in the Internet
governance world, we do not behave in such a manner.


 > which is the currently ongoing, so everyone has a right to air
their opinion on that forum.  DCA did not circulate the posting
inappropriately,

Since the question of potential conflict by Candidates had already
been addressed on the at-large workspace, I do consider it an
inappropriate posting.

> unlike those who have taken the privilege of circulating unauthenticated letters that has not even been addressed to them.

Are you saying that the letter from the AU is not authentic?

>
> I think respect starts with using appropriate channel of communication and doing the right thing.

I agree with the above.  However, I do not believe DCA did the 'right
thing' in this instance.

--
Cheers,

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