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

[McTim]

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Lerato Mamboleo <lerato.ma at yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

> It was brought up because  it has been marketed by people that we did not
> disclose it to.

I see.


> 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?

As a native English speaker, I am happy with this definition:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mandate


> 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...."

Now I think you are confused.  I am asking to see the original mandate
from AU to DCA.  I ask again, will you publish that for the community
to see?

,snip>


> 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.

Which leaves us in a situation where .africa may not be delegated at
all if more than one government objects.

>
> 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.

Because I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer.yet.

What is a "mandate" for
> you?

see above definition

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 '?



ICANN will not arbitrate, they will use DRSPs for that according to
the Guidebook.

I'm not sure it would reach a DRSP, as the Guidebook also says:  "If
there is more than one application for a string
representing a certain geographic name as described in
this section, and the applications have requisite
government approvals, the applications will be suspended
pending resolution by the applicants."

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arbitration #3 seems an adequate definition to me.


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

"they", as in .dotafrica.org are not trying to.  they have not claimed
a mandate from AU, nor have they claimed that AU should not be
involved.

My question to you still stands. Can you provide a more reasonable
answer please?


>
> 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.

You have offered to provide minutes for a meeting, I am simply taking
you up on that offer.  Please provide said minutes 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.
>
> Does content on internet governance selectively applies to particular group
> or organization, or email group?

no, I did not claim that.

  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?

What was posted to the Kictanet list was a letter from the AU rep to
DCA.  It contained no inappropriate content.  If it should have been
posted is a question I leave to the readers.

Once your 8 point statement was posted to the Wiki, it's in the public domain.

  In this case, how can you have
> the credence to say to define "what is inappropriate" or not.?

As I have said repeatedly, the Candidate has offered to recuse himself
in advance on this specific issue.  you say there is a COI, I say that
there is a potential which has already been satisfactorily addressed
in the Q and A on that forum.


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

We will have to agree to disagree on that.


>
> 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.

yes, and we have some unwritten rules in the Internet Governance
world. One of them is that questioning a persons integrity is beyond
the pale.  You may not consider it an ad hominem message, but I and
many others do.  it seems to me that this is self defeating for DCA.

>
>> 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.


no, it can't.  I would like a yes or no answer from you please.


>
> 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.

I would suggest you read the guidebook again.  You seem to think that
if two competing geo-string applicants both apply for the same string,
ICANN will decide between the two.  My reading of the Guidebook
suggests that that is not the case.


-- 
Cheers,

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