Days just before the ICANN Dublin meeting, DCA Trust has sent a warning to ICANN Board, through a letter posted on 14th October 2015.
This letter responds to the Chair of ICANN Board, who wrote a letter to Chair of ICANN GAC “to request the GAC to clarify, or refine the earlier GAC Objection Advice that had been previously issued in April 2013 against DCA Trust’s .Africa application.”
DCA Trust which has been embroiled in a battle over .africa for nearly 4 years and another 2 years in a legal battle with ICANN, won in an independent review panel decision to its favor on July 12015, has asked ICANN not to shift blame to GAC for its own errors and omissions in making decisions over the .africa gTLD, noting that the IRP was against ICANN’s actions and not against the GAC.
The CEO and Founder of DCA Trust Sophia Bekele, who has gone through it all in the quest for an Africa domain using the transparent and ethical channels has spoken about the surprises ,intrigues of an uncountable internet governance system in her Key note speech at the Lincoln University in Oakland California.
While citing various types of scandals from recent years like the Scott Thomson, FIFA and ICANN's accountability meltdown and U.S. Congressional Intervention, Sophia reckons that
“knowing the time to avoid the results of unethical behavior is before it occurs, and not after. In our profession we always say "Prevention is superior to inspection", and in no area is this more important than business ethics.”
Speaking about the DCA vs ICANN .Africa IRP, the CEO noted that
DCA has called for a Joint Cooperative Framework with ICANN, following the final IRP ruling. Here is DCA Trust's response after the ICANN board's resolution and interpretation of the IRP report. The DCA response contained most of the points that would have addressed some of the recent developments on ICANN' reaction to the IRP ruling and public comments.
Immediately after the IRP Ruling ICANN was found to have redacted most of the incriminating details, the contents of ICANN’s role in failing DCA before the Initiation evaluation. The report in summary is well detailed in this 3 series blog.
John Jeffrey, ICANN’s Counsel wrote a Blog titled “.AFRICA IRP Declaration – Clearing Up Some Facts” , which was was meant to explain the reasons behind the redactions and reaction of public opi
The Internet global multi-stakeholder community needs time to complete its work, have the plan reviewed by the U.S. government and then put it into action if approved, the U.S. Department of Commerce said Monday.
The U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) said in March last year it planned to let its contract with ICANN to operate key domain-name functions expire in September 2015, passing the oversight of the agency to a global governance model, however this is likely to extend as per the latest blog update below
The Internet’s global multistakeholder community has made tremendous progress in its work to develop a proposal to transition the historic stewardship role NTIA has played related to Internet’s domain name system (DNS).
When we announced our
ICANN’s new gTLD guidebook clearly specified how its contractors were supposed to act with competence, and also independently to assure best quality performance in the evaluation of the 1930 new gTLD applications that were submitted under the new gTLD program.
The outcome of an Independent Review Panel however indicates otherwise in one of the most controversial applications under the ICANN new gTLD program.
The discovery process of the .Africa IRP which pitted DCA Trust against ICANN showed a wide array of underhand dealings between InterConnnect Communications, the independent firm that was contracted to review geographic names and ICANN staff that were guided to ensure that ICANN’s choice, ZACR got the string and not DCA Trust.
Here is an excerpt from the new gTLD Applicant Guideb
In a landmark ruling announced on Thursday, 9 July 2015, Independent Review Process (IRP) facilitated by the International Center for Dispute Resolution (ICDR) declared that DotConnectAfrica Trust was the prevailing party in the two year case was commenced after a suit that was filed by DCA Trust in October 2013 to challenge an ICANN Board decision.
The international IRP Panel comprised of Arbitration experts, Mr. Babak Barin (President of Panel), a leading Commercial Arbitration Expert from Canada and a member of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA); Prof. (Dr.) Catherine Kessedjian, an International Dispute Resolution Specialist and Professor of Law at the University of Panthéon-Assas, Paris, France; and the Honorable Judge William J. Cahill, a retired San Francisco Supe
Research published by ICANN has pointed to a growing awareness of new gTLDs, although such strings lag significantly behind legacy TLDs in terms of familiarity. Arguably more of a surprise is the finding that just over one in three internet users are aware of cybersquatting.
Extract: Just 40% of all respondents were aware of cybersquatting. One positive is that in Africa (50% awareness) and Asia (45%) this figure was higher but, on the flipside, the levels drop to 31% amongst South American and 29% amongst European respondents. In the US awareness reached 37%
We have previously reported on studies that have examined awareness of the online expansion amongst consumers worldwide, those conducted to date suggesting there is some way to go before gTLDs go mainstream. The latest contribution ...
According to a recent update on the .Africa IRP that involves DotConnectAfrica Vs ICANN, the IRP Panel has demanded that all witnesses that are linked to the case must be available to answer the Viva Voce questions during the in-person hearing slated for May.
Find more from the detailed coverage below
ICANN Must Produce Witnesses, insists DCA vs ICANN .africa Tribunal
ICANN wants the .africa Tribunal to Accept Witness Statement on Face value!
A new update has emerged from the ICDR-led Independent Review Process (IRP) International Tribunal that is tasked with deciding the legal dispute between DotConnectAfrica Trust and ICANN over the .Africa new gTLD name string.
Tribunal’s clarification to key procedural matters on the IRP hearing
The latest interim declaration is related to IRP procedu
eMarketer, a major market research firm, has released a new study on the introduction of new gTLDs and their chances for success. eMarketer releases over 200 analyst reports per year, which are only available to their corporate subscribers, but they did make some excerpts from this report - titled “The Domain Name Explosion: Hundreds of New Choices Beyond .com Mean New Marketing Considerations" - available to all on their website. Reports DNJournal
eMarketer, who has no skin in the game themselves, acknowledged that there are widely divergent views of the new gTLD program, noting, "What some view as a “blank canvas for innovation” to spur more creativity, diversity and trust on the internet, others see as costly, exploitative and bound to cause consumer confusion. Nonethel
As contributed by Roger Kay on Forbes.
So, I’ve already said it once this year: more than 12 months after the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) opened up the Web domain space to a potentially infinite number of new names, the greatest expansion has been in confusion.
Once upon a time there were only 22 generic top-level domains (sometimes called gTLDs, Internet domains, Web domains, or just domains ) with type suffixes like .com, .net, .mil, and .gov, and geographic suffixes like .uk, .ru, and .jp.
Now there are close to 500 — with potentially 900 more to come in the next few months.
After an initial flurry of apparent enthusiasm — a certain amount of defensive purchasing of adjacent name spaces (e.g., Apple AAPL -2.61% nailing down .mac, Amazon.com AMZN -
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.