The Founder and CEO of DotConnectAfrica Trust fired back a written response on CircleID – an ICANN related industry opinion blog to clarify to a statement made by ICANN’s CEO at a press conference to journalist at ICANN 50 International meeting in London, to what he said “Similarly the Africa where single applicant has filed an IRP she decided that this is her right and it her right and we should let her pursue her right even if the whole African Union has a different view her right is to say I don’t agree with the decision.”
Part of her clarifications below states:
Our organization DCA is a non-profit corporation and .africa gTLD applicant, yet was referred to during ICANN 50 as a “SHE”. It was particularly surprising to hear the reference made by the CEO of ICANN Fadi Chehadi during a Press Conference at the just concluded London ICANN International meeting referring to DCA’s application as a “SHE”.
The CEO’s comments that DCA has “Rights” to the IRP was a welcome clarification and a wake up call to any special interest group that may think the “African continent” is only represented by them, she said and went on:
Despite, I thought it would be to the public interest, to list out the multiple errors made by the ICANN CEO in defense of ICANN’s accountability process, using the .africa as an example. The CEO of ICANN:
- Incorrectly referred to our application as an individual applicant, which is untrue, as ICANN guidebook does not accept “Individual” applicants. One has to be a Corporation to apply.
- Incorrectly referred to DCA as a “SHE”, whereas DCA is a Corporation that has no gender identity.
- Incorrectly stated that DCA is challenging the “entire AUC” in the IRP, whereas the IRP is about ICANN’s actions.
- Incorrectly suggested that DCA is challenging the “entire AUC” as if the AUC is a legal applicant to the .africa gTLD, which they are not.
While thanking the GNSO for the recent call for accountability during ICANN 50 Conference, Sophia says:
The recent announcement at the ICANN 50 London, by all stakeholder groups and constituencies comprising of ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) to endorse a joint statement in support of the creation of an independent accountability mechanism “that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community” is a very welcome development to the Multistakeholder framework.
I was appointed as a policy advisor on GNSO in 2005 when the New gTLD programs was just taking off and I know the painstaking deliberation we had to formulate a fair, competitive, transparent and equitable policy development process over the outcome of the gTLD guidebook and I will not take it in vain. I have since been an ICANN citizen and an active participant in its process, and currently put in a position to test its accountability.
Recall I wrote to Congress, on a matter that now has become a serious issue of Internet Governance and transition plan of ICANN. You can dissect one process from another to conquer and divide, but the principles of accountability and transparency in any organization remain the same around the world.
Read the rest of her post on CircleID