[kictanet] Official response to the "facts" circulated by Alice on behalf of DotConnectAfrica

[Vika Mpisane]

In essence, McTim, the answer for everyone interested in new gTLDs is
simple: read & understand the Applicant Guidebook. It really does have all
the answers. In particular, it defines quite well how a community gTLD
differs from a geo gTLD. When you read it, then you understand why the
only .africa application (the one by UniForum SA backed by the AUC) -
based on ICANN new gTLD application -list is a geo gTLD & not a community
gTLD.

Another good source for answers is the ICANN new gTLD website where it
lists all the current 1930 new gTLD applications. It really does say there
is only one .africa application, and that's the one from UniForum SA
(backed & endorsed by the AUC). That site also shows there are 2 other
applications with the name "africa": .africamagic & .dotafrica.

Whether or not .dotafrica (applied for by DCA) is confusingly similar to
.africa (by UniForum SA backed & endorsed by the AUC) is a matter that the
ICANN new gTLD Applicant Guidebook also answers quite well. Effectively,
the Applicant Guidebook is like a bible of some sort for everything new
gTLD: it's got all the answers (save, of course, a possibility of
correcting mistaken gTLD applications).

Assuming then the new gTLD "bible" is correct, the question is: did DCA
make a mistake when they applied for .dotafrica? Judging by some press
releases from DCA, it seems this is the case, but I'm open to correction.
If it's the case, then the question I have is: why then ICANN continues to
list the UniForum's application as the only .africa application on file?

I guess then unless we see ICANN listing DCA's application as another
.africa application in addition to UniForum's, DCA & UniForum have applied
for 2 different strings. If ICANN were to change & list DCA as having
applied for .africa (and not .dotafrica), then we would then have an open
competition between DCA's application & UniForum's application, which, in
fact, we should welcome because competition in business is good.

And so that it's clear, I'm involved in the UniForum's .africa geo gTLD
application. So i'm not pretending to be neutral at all here. I just don't
think it's helpful at all to bash other people because they are
competition to UniForum's bid.

Regards,

Vika Mpisane
ZADNA


On 2012/07/30 4:07 PM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 1:52 AM, Gideon <gideonrop at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear Ms.Alice Munyua,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am asked by our organization to post this clarification below to the
>> statements you posted last week Re:Facts Regarding the African Union
>> Commission (.Africa) application in the interest of the public.
>>
>>
>>
>> That you ahead for your cooperation.
>>
>>
>>
>> First, the deliberate distortion
>
>That's a bit strong.  how do you know it was deliberate?
>
>If you want to talk about facts, use the link that Neil provided,
>click on download the "public portion of the application", and see how
>many times the AU and AUC are referenced.   It is clear to me that the
>AU and UniForum are partnering in this application.
>
>
> that AUC/UniForum has submitted an
>> application for .AFRICA is unwarranted and quite misleading, and this
>>should
>> not be treated as 'fact'. The true fact is that the AUC is not an
>>applicant.
>
>While they may not be an applicant, they are certainly working 'in
>cooperation with" or "in partnership with".
>
>
>> Only UniForum is the applicant acknowledged by ICANN. Therefore, it is
>> untruthful and rather disingenuous on your part to present the AUC as an
>> applicant - either as a co- or joint applicant to UniForum. Everyone
>>should
>> know that the AU has not applied to ICANN for anything, so there is no
>>AUC
>> application the way that you have been distorting 'facts' to suit your
>> purpose.
>>
>>
>>
>> Second, though you have listed many things, the most important thing
>>that
>> you have left out is that the UniForum application was not submitted on
>> behalf of either the African Union Commission, African governments, the
>> African  Community or African Internet Community. You should have listed
>> this as 'fact', but you have not.
>
>
>If it were listed as "fact" you surely would have complained about that!
>
>The "fact" is that it is a geographic TLD and NOT a community based TLD.
>
>Are you suggesting that your application for .DotAfrica (or .Africa if
>that is what you have applied for) is a community based application
>and NOT a geo-TLD?
>
>
>
>Therefore, there is actually no community
>> ownership of the Applied-for string so your use of the term 'official
>>AUC
>> endorsed application for the dotAfrica (.Africa) Top Level Domain' is
>>rather
>> specious and a misnomer.
>
>It is neither specious nor a misnomer.  They do have an official
>endorsement and they have a large community of support behind them.
>
>
>
>  Against this background, how is the UniForum
>> application, in your estimation, "a collaborative African initiative"?
>>One
>> would expect at least that if it is a collaborative African initiative,
>>then
>> the ownership of the TLD by the community should have been properly
>> demonstrated by a community application conveyed as an application on
>>behalf
>> of the African Community for a .AFRICA Community TLD.
>
>It only stands to reason that a geo-TLD (a continental wide one at that)
>have a
>collaborative community behind it.
>
>Are you applying for a Community-based string?
>
>>
>>
>>
>> In the absence of this, we still see the UniForum application as a
>>deceptive
>> ploy that  used the purported support of the AU Commission to garner
>>support
>> from African governments to enable them provide support for an
>>application
>> that will benefit a special interest group.  The way we see it is quite
>> simple: DCA Trust will continue to expose this fraud for what it truly
>>is.
>> If the AUC provided support to UniForum to apply on behalf of the
>>African
>> Community, then we believe that ³a Community TLD application ³for
>>.AFRICA
>> should have been submitted by UniForum to ICANN.
>
>Again, would this same reasoning have applied to you?  If not, why not?
>
>Is .DotAfrica a community or geo-TLD?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Third, you seem to make much of a process that was "mandated by African
>> Heads of State (OR Tambo Declaration) and African Minister¹s in charge
>>of
>> ICT (Abuja Declaration)" to justify your 'facts'. Would these African
>>Heads
>> of States and Ministers not demand some form of accountability
>>regarding why
>> a community TLD application for .Africa was not submitted by Uniforum?
>
>
>again with the red-herrings!  This is a geo-TLD, NOT a "Community-TLD".
>
>
>> Since you seem to know many facts regarding the so-called 'African Union
>> Commission (.Africa) application, perhaps you should help clarify for
>> everyone's benefit why a Community TLD application for .Africa was not
>> submitted by Uniforum.
>>
>
>This is a geo-TLD, NOT a "Community-TLD".
>
>
>>
>>
>> Fourth,  you have tried to make much over the fact that the UniForum
>> application is AU-supported, and that the "application meets and
>>exceeds,
>> the minimum evaluation criteria set by ICANN for application of
>>Geographic
>> strings." Alas, the evaluation is not only on the basis of the
>>evaluation
>> criteria for 'geographic strings'. The evaluation criteria is actually
>>more
>> comprehensive, and covers a wide range of issues such as technical,
>> operational, financial criteria; coupled with terms & conditions, legal
>> issues, etc.  We remain confident that the Uniforum application will
>>fail
>> based on the scope of its separate agreement with the African Union
>> Commission.  We prefer to leave such issues to the Evaluation and the
>> outcome of any Dispute Resolution.
>
>
>but if you had gotten the endorsement of the AU, you wouldn't be
>claiming the same thing, would you??!
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Fifth, the application submitted by DCA Trust is for the geographic name
>> 'AFRICA', pronounced as 'DotAfrica'. This is for a 6-character ASCII
>>string.
>> The application submitted by DCA Trust was correctly designated by
>>ICANN as
>> referring to a geographic name. Your understanding that it is for
>> 'dotdotAfrica' is incorrect.  Our published part of application is
>>posted
>> and available hereŠŠŠŠŠŠŠ
>
>http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicati
>ondetails/1276
>
>or
>
>http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicati
>ondetails:downloadapplication/1276?t:ac=1276
>
>to dload public parts of application.
>
>
>>
>> Finally, it is important for us to note that you have become openly
>> supportive of the UniForum application, and we therefore hope that you
>>will
>> not use any of your official affiliations either within the Kenyan
>> government or the ICANN GAC to influence things in their favour.
>
>Why not?  if the AUC has endorsed UniForum as their partner in
>bidding, should not all AU governments act accordingly?
>
>
> We caution
>> you not to be official or unofficial spokesperson of UniForum, and
>>allow the
>> applications that have been submitted to ICANN to be evaluated fairly
>> without any undue interference on your part or on the part of the group
>>that
>> you now seem to represent in the most unabashed manner .
>
>
>how is statement of facts "interference"?
>
>
>-- 
>Cheers,
>
>McTim
>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
>_______________________________________________
>kictanet mailing list
>kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>
>Unsubscribe or change your options at
>https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/vika%40zadna.org.za
>
>The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform
>for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and
>regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT
>sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and
>development.
>
>KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors
>online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and
>bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect
>privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
>