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

Fri Nov 19 08:09:48 SAST 2010

Hi Lerato,

Unfortunately, I'm even more confused now.

I agree with your confusion, but I doubt clarity is something you will get from 
where you sit.  You will have to be patient and wait and see.

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?

It was brought up because  it has been marketed by people that we did not 
disclose it to. The only reason we even put the response on the website is 
 because it was copied to external party I,e ICANN, whereas  the original letter 
from the Chairman was not.   The copying to external party was to allow for the 
circulation and intended to block our effort.   If it was well-intended, the 
communication should have remained between concerned parties.  So, that is why 
we had to be forced to disclosed our response publicly as well.  Otherwise there 
are many internal communications that takes place.
>
> Additionally our response to AU is communicated publicly on DCA website. 
>www.dotconnectafrica.org.

this is not in dispute either, is it?

answer is provided above.

> 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?

It seems that the argument back and forth and distributing of letters from 
unauthorized sources is in provocation of that.  And we will not participate in 
that channel.

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

Do you know what a "mandate" is?  You also just answered your own question.Your 
request for disclosure contradicts your own comment above where you said,  
"...have not seen in this thread that alluded to that...." ,  

>
> 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.

That is part of the confusion...

> 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?

All paths to hell are paved with good intention, in this case the "consensuses"  
to what?   Approval to do what?     You have not separated the orange from the 
apple in this case.  Again, we shall leave that job to ICANN.

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."

Again, you also keep raising the same question. What is a "mandate" for you?  
There is no process for AU to arbitrate; nor can DCA do that. ICANN is the 
arbitrator of the process. Do you know what "arbitration is '?

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

can they?

> 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?

oops spell ck?, meant to say "received vs relieved"

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.

That clarity is in the whole statement, you may want to read  it again, unless 
of course that you are again "alluding" to ask for disclosure, that which you 
claimed above no one is asking.

> 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.

Does content on internet governance selectively applies to particular group or 
organization, or email group?   Did you support the same view during the recent 
"inappropriate content"  in Kicktnet, where you are also a member, or here on 
AfriICANN earlier on this email?   In this case, how can you have the credence 
to say to define "what is inappropriate" or not.? 

> 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.

That was a pre-empted question/answer, even before our posting.    The candidate 
should have disclosed his COI in his SOI, as per ICANN rule.   If not, he has 
exposed himself to the 8 counts of COI that we have stated.  Legitimate concerns 
and facts can be presented anytime.  Rules are also meant to be followed.

> 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?

your question can be answered if you read the letter cautiously again.

> 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.

You as the supporter of the Candidate in question, and may feel that way about 
it, but not everyone may share that view with you in reality.

Am afraid McTim, and due respect your question may be valid, however unless you 
are not appointed to be an arbitrator between ICANN/AU/DCA or any other that you 
may have not disclosed, It makes no sense to clarify further on this issue that 
deals with competing gtlds and who is the best application or not to the proper 
authorities.  Again, the decision is not ours, there is a process that will 
determine that and is called guidebook, and we should leave that to ICANN, the 
decision maker. - Thank you.  LM.

Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
_______________________________________________
AfrICANN mailing list
AfrICANN at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20101118/b9f132b8/attachment-0001.htm