<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>Congratulations McTim for heckling DCA because this is what your present diatribe and animosity against DCA amounts to. Very hard to discuss concrete issues with you. </span>Goodluck with your hatefulness!</div><div><span><br></span></div> <div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; "> <div style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif; "> <font size="2" face="Arial"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold;">From:</span></b> McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> Lerato Mamboleo <lerato.ma@yahoo.com> <br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Cc:</span></b> "africann@afrinic.net" <africann@afrinic.net>; ""mje@posix.co.za"" <mje@posix.co.za> <br> <b><span
style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Saturday, November 19, 2011 12:44 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [AfrICANN-discuss] DCA expresses commitment to work with African ccTLDs<br> </font> <br>
Hello again,<br><br><br>On 11/19/11, Lerato Mamboleo <<a ymailto="mailto:lerato.ma@yahoo.com" href="mailto:lerato.ma@yahoo.com">lerato.ma@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Dear McTim,<br>><br>> You cannot continue to engage DCA<br>> every week in ‘energy-dissipating’ discussions – in the preceding two weeks<br>> it<br>> was on CircleID, and now it is on the AfriCANN mailing list.<br><br>In fact, I can, and I will if I so choose. It's not up to you (or<br>anyone for that matter) to tell me how often I can offer my views.<br><br>><br>> Against the backdrop that you<br>> have openly stated your determined opposition and ardent hatred for DCA and<br>> its<br>> initiative,<br><br>I am opposed to your "All is Fair in Love and War" (a quote from your<br>colleague) attitude and your negative campaigns, not your organisation<br>itself.<br><br><br> it is difficult to imagine what you intend to gain out of this<br>>
campaign of calumny<br><br>There's the pot calling the kettle black. What I would ideally like<br>as the end result is to stop the negativity flowing from DCA.<br><br>that you have commenced against DCA. You state that you<br>> have “no<br>> financial or other interest in ARC, AfTLD, dotafrica.orgor any other group<br>> vying for .africa” but your voice is actually more strident than the voices<br>> of<br>> those who are officially opposed to DCA. It is<br>> either you are a paid mercenary of these vested interests that are<br>> opposed to DCA or you are assisting them now, with the hope of getting a<br>> policy<br>> advisory role as your compensation sometime in the near future.<br><br>Since the people who are trying to compete with you have much more<br>ICANN experience than me, this is hardly likely, but thanks for<br>suggesting it to them for me ;-)<br><br> If not,<br>> what exactly is your interest in
these<br>> matters?<br><br>Fair play, the development of the Internet eco-system in Africa<br>including a style of engagement that involves coordination,<br>collaboration and appropriate communication for a start.<br><br>><br>> Is it wrong for DCA to express a<br>> commitment to work with African ccTLDs? During your last altercation on<br>> CircleID<br>> you insisted that DCA must make a commitment regarding an ‘African<br>> solution’,<br><br>No, I didn't. I said that DCA (or whoever is the registry operator)<br>SHOULD try and keep monies generated from .africa in Africa whenever<br>possible. That includes using a homegrown solution for the back-end<br>registry. I think you need to read more carefully.<br><br><br>> and here DCA is making a commitment to the African ccTLDs, and you are also<br>> finding fault, it is already quite clear that your reasoning has been<br>> befouled<br>> by your open, frivolous and
unrepentant antagonism towards DCA. This is<br>> highly<br>> regrettable.<br><br>I will be antagonistic towards DCAs "scorched earth" style of<br>engagement until you stop it. I don't regret it at all.<br><br> By your posturing, it is quite obvious that you are not a<br>> disinterested, impartial, detached observer the way you always try to<br>> portray<br>> yourself. Your patent bias is rather self-defeating. You are simply another<br>> mercenary<br><br>mercenaries get paid, I'm just offering my honest opinion, but thanks<br>for trying to besmirch my reputation.<br><br> that has involved himself in what looks like an African war over<br>> DotAfrica gTLD, and in the process, the ‘Dog of War’ that you are has now<br>> entangled<br>> himself in a ‘Fog of War’ with DCA!<br>><br>> Of course, DCA can firmly oppose to the current AU RFP on DotAfrica the same<br>> way DCA vociferously expressed its
strong<br>> opposition to the earlier EOI process that failed. DCA is also hoping that<br>> the<br>> present RFP process will not see the light of day. DCA shall not<br>> participate in<br>> an extraordinary process that has been introduced to pass or fail a<br>> prospective<br>> gTLD applicant outside the ICANN gTLD programme.<br><br>Well, since the ICANN process MANDATES that applicants get a letter of<br>support (or at least no objection), how would you suggest that the AU<br>offer these letters to applicants?<br><br>Please explain, this seems to be the crux of the matter.<br><br> Moreover, we already know<br>> that your friends<br>> and paymasters<br><br>I wish someone was paying me to put up with this nonsense, but sadly,<br>I am not paid, so how can they be my "paymasters"??<br><br><br> on the AU DotAfrica Task Force will use the RFP opportunity<br>> to<br>> stop DCA from bidding for DotAfrica; so what
is the point of giving<br>> credibility<br>> and legitimacy to a farcical process that has been hastily put together to<br>> assist the opponents of DCA?<br>><br><br>See above, the ICANN DAG says that applicants need to show<br>documentation of support.<br>How else does a body like the AU determine who gets such a letter?<br><br><br>> In any case, whether DCA is<br>> opposed to the RFP or not does not in any way invalidate our viewpoint that<br>> “the RFP does not in any way refer to AfTLD.” Please show us<br>> where it refers to AfTLD<br><br>I never said it did, again, you must read more carefully.<br><br><br><br> in the bidder’s eligibility to form acceptable<br>> Consortiums, and we shall say touché. Is the AfTLD not supposed to draw its<br>> membership from the confederation of African ccTLDs<br><br>AfTLD is "the confederation" of African ccTLDs.<br><br><br><silly and misleading analogy to African Football
politics elided><br><br><br>><br>> Irrespective<br>> of whatever you ‘googled’ to justify your unremitting antagonism towards<br><br>I googled for facts, you should try it sometime.<br><br>> DCA,<br>> and regarding whether we are defending the AfTLD or not, we believe the<br>> AfTLD<br>> does not need us to speak for it, but the truth must be told nevertheless.<br>> It was<br>> the same vested interest group that tried to use AfTLD to achieve its<br>> ridiculous<br>> objective of creating a formidable coalition against DCA that is also now<br>> providing support to ARC. It was for that reason they congregated at Ghana<br>> to<br>> give a Vote of Confidence to the AfTLD.<br><br><br>I thought that was a regular annual AfTLD meeting? only a very small<br>portion of it was about .africa.<br><br><br>><br>> The<br>> question therefore is: what happened to that Vote of Confidence? Is AfTLD no<br>>
longer the darling of the anti-DCA groups? The point is that these people<br>> already know<br>> which side their bread is buttered, and as they seek after filthy lucre,<br>> they<br>> already understand that the AfTLD does not have a well-oiled financial<br>> machinery, hence they shamelessly switched allegiance to the upstart ARC<br>> where<br>> they expect to gain more financially since ARC has the financial backing of<br>> ‘new-money’ venture capitalists.<br><br>I can make no sense of the above, so won't comment on it, except to<br>remark that a few weeks ago, DCA slandered these ‘new-money’ venture<br>capitalists as "likely BEE scammers".<br><br><br>><br>> McTim<br>> my friend let us be more objective and empirical in our assertions and<br>> analyses.<br><br>Absolutely, let's use facts, and not distortion, half-truths and<br>outright lies. BTW, friends don't treat each other with
disrespect,<br>so we won't be "friendly" until you apologize for the insinuations<br>made in your last post.<br><br>> It is easy for you to ‘google-up’ information that shows you that AfTLD has<br>> up<br>> to 24 members.<br><br>and one of the docs I found was on your website stating that AFTLD has<br>24 members.<br>http://www.dotconnectafrica.org/2011/03/exclusive-commentary-dca-aftld-seeks-mandate-manage-africa/<br><br><br><br> It is strange that you do not find it worrying that within a<br>> continent of 54 countries, that there are more African ccTLDs outside the<br>> fold<br>> of AfTLD than within it. DCA have since performed due diligence on<br>> AfTLD and we know for sure that the legal personality called ‘AfTLD Ltd.’,<br>> does<br>> not have this type of ownership that your Google-search has dredged up for<br>> you.<br><br>Did I ever say anything about AfTLD other than they are the<br>association of
African ccTLDs?<br><br> We work on legally-defensible facts not things<br>> that have been put out there to fool the public. We know<br>> that there is a great difference between 24 African ccTLDs being identified<br>> as<br>> members of an AfTLD that lacks proper legal establishment (the way you see<br>> it),<br><br><br>Again, you are trying to put words in my mouth...I NEVER said that<br>AfTLD lacks proper legal establishment. You said that, not me.<br><br><br>> and perhaps 1 or 2 members of a legally constituted AFTLD Ltd (the way we<br>> see<br>> it).<br><br>but on your website you say they have 24, so which is it, 2 or 24?<br><br>><br>> Finally,<br>> again, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Imagine the verbal war<br>> that<br>> has broken out today simply because of a media report that DCA has expressed<br>> a<br>> commitment to work with African ccTLDs. It is therefore clear that
people<br>> like<br>> you will work against DCA in any way they could, including sabotaging DCA’s<br>> stated desire to work in cooperation, or form Consortium relationships, with<br>> these African ccTLDs. And you still expect DCA to justify why it as no faith<br>> in the AU RFP process!<br><br>chalk and cheese. The AU RFP has nothing at all to do with my<br>opinions about your strategy. Why would you conflate the two?<br><br>If your all about facts and transparency, can you detail for us who<br>owns DCA? Who has invested and how much over the last few years? Is<br>it not based in Mauritius as well as AfTLD?<br>My understanding of The Companies Act 2001 of Mauritius is that<br>non-profits in Mauritius are frequently the kind of private company<br>(limited by guarantee) that AfTLD seems to be.<br><br>Is DCA the same kind of company? If not, can you explain exactly how<br>DCA is incorporated in Mauritius (which
type of company, any<br>registered owners, bylaws, constitutiion, etc).<br><br>I think in the interest of transparency, Africans should know exactly<br>who will run and how they will run a .africa. ARC has put this on<br>their website, can you do the same?<br><br>-- <br>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br><br><br> </div> </div> </div></body></html>