<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><p>FYI...<br></p><p><b>Call for ICANN to Educate and Not Mislead GAC</b></p><p><a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140814_call_for_icann_to_educate_and_not_mislead_gac/">http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140814_call_for_icann_to_educate_and_not_mislead_gac/</a><br>
</p><p></p><p>I read with interest the <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/update-enhancing-icann-accountability#.U9lCqV_YeVI">recent blog</a>
written by Theresa Swinehart a Sr. Advisor to the President on
Strategy. She wrote: "The most critical element of this [ICANN
Transition] process is trust and alignment. To ensure success on this
accountability track, we must as a community work closely together to
make sure that the final process is meaningful. There is plenty of work
to be done in an ambitious period of time."
</p>
<p>
Post the completion of the ICANN 50 London meeting, I wrote a Commentary on this forum titled "<a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/20140703_thank_you_gnso_from_the_she_dot_africa/">Thank You GNSO - From the SHE.africa</a>”,
endorsing a call by the ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization
(GNSO) which unanimously endorsed a joint statement in support of the
creation of an independent accountability mechanism. As a former GNSO
member I thanked GNSO for their good efforts and reminded them of DCA
Trust's call for the same mechanisms. This was even before the NTIA
transition became an issue. I also pointed the concerns we expressed to
US Congress. We pointed out in our letter Congress has the overarching
responsibility for the oversight of ICANN. I also commented on some of
my observations from the outcome of the ICANN 50 London meeting
regarding the misleading message that was being conveyed by ICANN CEO on
DCA's .africa gTLD application.
</p>
<p>
<b>DCA GAC Responses valuable to ICANN's Accountability improvements</b>
</p>
<p>
In a follow up note, I wrote directly to the GNSO to bring to their
attention the above mentioned matters. The letter can be found <a href="http://www.dotconnectafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/DotConnectAfrica-Letter-to-GNSO-Note-of-Thanks-on-the-unanimous-endorsement-in-support-of-creation-of-an-Independent-Accountability-mechanism-14-Aug-2014.pdf">here</a>
[PDF]. In this letter, I also referenced DCA's response to the recent
GAC Advice conveyed in the GAC London Communiqué on africa. DCA pointed
out specific deficiencies that could be cited in various forms. These
included inappropriate communications, misleading information,
incompetency and a lack of understanding that exists within the ICANN
structures in handling its matters. Our response and observations should
be taken in this context, and in adherence to any accountability and
transparency improvement measures.
</p>
<p>
It is within this context that I am compelled to post again DCA's case to shed <b>more</b> light on what I think would be of public interest. In particular the activities of GAC and ICANN's reaction to it.
</p>
<p>
<b>Inappropriate GAC Advice on .Africa in London GAC Communiqué, while under an IRP</b>
</p>
<p>
Amid these developments and in a surprising move, the London meeting saw
the GAC give yet another Advice to the ICANN board concerning DCA
Trust's application on .africa, an application which is currently going
through ICANN's Independent Review process (IRP) created by ICANN and
set forth in its Bylaws.
</p>
<p>
In reality, the IRP is a process for independent third-party review of
Board actions. DCA Trust initiated an IRP seeking that an independent
third-party panel adjudicate the rights that DCA has asserted in its
Notice of IRP, and in particular, the right to have its application
treated fairly, transparently, and with due diligence by ICANN in
accordance with ICANN's Bylaws, Article of Incorporation, and the gTLD
Applicant Guidebook. The IRP is currently ongoing and the discussions
and Panel discussions are hosted both on ICANN and DCA site <a href="http://www.dotconnectafrica.org/icann-related-2/independent-review-process-dca-vs-icann/">here</a>.
</p>
<p>
Where the New gTLD Program is concerned, the role of GAC requires the
representatives to understand the gTLD Applicant Guidebook, the ICANN
Bylaws and the IRP process contained therein, a process which as noted
is independent of both ICANN and the applicants. <b>From the
questions raised in the GAC Advice and in the available transcripts of
the various GAC meetings during ICANN 50 and during past ICANN meetings,
it is our deep concern that ICANN allows the GAC to intervene in
ICANN's evaluation and delegation of new gTLDs without ensuring that the
GAC representatives actually understand ICANN processes.</b>
</p>
<p>
<b>Lack of Proper Education of GAC members</b>
</p>
<p>
A lack of proper education is the clear explanation for certain GAC
members urging ICANN to truncate the IRP and/or compromise the
independence of the proceeding, which is according to ICANN, an
applicant's only method of legal recourse. Based upon the GAC's recent
actions and advice, DotConnectAfrica has also raised various questions
to ICANN which are of the public interest.
</p>
<p>
<b>ICANN has a duty to educate the members of the Internet
community at large as well as the members of the GAC themselves, as part
of its obligation to act in a transparent and accountable manner.</b>
</p>
<p>
It is on this basis and others which we incorporated in our full GAC
response that we felt strongly that the GAC Advice given to ICANN during
ICANN 50 in London demonstrated both the African Union's inappropriate
efforts to determine the outcome of the applications for .africa and
ICANN's improper acquiescence to the GAC's demands. We strongly urged
ICANN not to accept this advice.
</p>
<p>
<b>In addition, ICANN must prevent that a GAC member use its
position on the GAC as a tool to promote its own interest, as the
African Union has attempted to do with respect to .Africa, by prompting a
GAC advice for ICANN to delegate .africa to the AU-backed applicant
competing with DCA Trust.</b>
</p>
<p>
In summary, we objected to the GAC's advice as improper and showing a
failure on the part of ICANN to adequately educate and inform GAC
representatives. We expect ICANN to decline to follow the London GAC
Advice with regard to .africa, consistent with its obligations under the
Bylaws and other documents governing ICANN and the IRP.
</p>
<p>
Our response was detailed and the full response can be found <a href="http://www.dotconnectafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/DotConnectAfrica-Trust-GAC-Response-August-3-2014.pdf">here</a> [PDF]. Additionally for those following the IRP, the direct links can also be found <a href="http://www.dotconnectafrica.org/icann-related-2/independent-review-process-dca-vs-icann/">here</a>.
</p>
<p><b>By <a href="http://www.circleid.com/members/5906/" class="">Sophia Bekele</a>,
CEO of DotConnectAfrica. Ms. Sophia Bekele is a former ICANN generic
Names Supporting Organization (gNSO) Council policy advisor from
2005-2007 & contributed to policy over the new gTLD programme and
IDNs. She is a founder and spearhead of the <a href="http://www.dotconnectafrica.org/">Yes2DotAfrica campaign</a>.
Bekele is a business and corporate executive, an international
entrepreneur, a thought leader in Corporate and ICT Governance,
international policy, Business Strategy, Internet, ICT &
development. Her Profiles on <a href="http://www.sophiabekele.com">sophiabekele.com</a> / <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_Bekele">wikipedia</a>.</b></p><p><br><b></b></p><p>Regards <br></p><p>Gideon Rop</p><p>
DotConnectAfrica<b><br></b></p></div></div>