[AfrICANN-discuss] Fwd: information - .africa string related claim - lies *Time we STOPPED This debate?***

[Dr Yassin Mshana]

Is this a campaign or what? It will soon be tiring to read everything posted
- pollution of ideas or what shall this be called?

It is time to Vote and do it wisely.

Kind regards

Yassin .

On 19 November 2010 08:28, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> AfrICANN mailing list
> AfrICANN at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann
>



-- 
c/o DFID-Sierra Leone
5 Off Spur Road
Wilberforce
Freetown
SIERRA LEONE

Skype: yassinmshana1

Mobile:+23276926697
Fax:  (+232) 22235769
Do You really NEED TO PRINT THIS?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/africann/attachments/20101119/386f823c/attachment-0001.htm