Recent Posts
- The Swiss can register .swiss domains from next week
- .ai up to 425,000 domains
- A million “free” .music domains up for grabs
- D3 to get $5 million in crypto to apply for .ape gTLD
- Alibaba hit with ICANN breach notice
- New Vegas conference “Davos for Web3 interoperability”
- ICANN content policing power grab may be dead
- Cable company unplugs its dot-brand after acquisition
- Germany crosses 10,000 dot-brand domains milestone
- Founders out as Com Laude gets equity injection
- PIR’s Diaz to leave domain industry
- Some registrars have already quit ICANN’s Whois experiment
- ICANN opens $217 million Grant Program
- Internet could get one-letter gTLDs (but there’s a catch)
- .ai registry fights deadbeats with tweaked auction rules
- Amazon and Google among .internal TLD ban backers
- .ai registry advises buyers not to use GoDaddy
- .post liberalizes with new sunrise period
- Team Internet spends $41 million on content farm
- Epik backtracks on Kiwi Farms claim after legal threat
- .austin names launch on blockchain
- Freenom shuts down 12.6 million domains — report
- GoDaddy’s next .xxx contract may not be a done deal
- GlobalBlock blocking 2.5 million domains
- Microsoft moving its cloud apps from .com to .microsoft
- ICANN 79: anonymous trolls and undercover lawyers
- ICANN scores win in single-letter .com lawsuit
- Cosmetics brand terminates its gTLD
- Up to 70 jobs on the line at Nominet as .uk regs dwindle
- Governments back down on new gTLD next round delay
- Private auctions could be banned in new gTLD next round
- ICANN meeting venue “insensitive and hurtful”
- GoDaddy to start selling graphic.design domains
- GAC spinning up new gTLD curveball at ICANN 79?
- GoDaddy’s GlobalBlock supports blockchain names
- Police .uk domain takedowns dive in 2023
- GoDaddy wants to cut the bullshit from .xxx
- Dueling domain blocking services to launch at ICANN 79
- Freename tries to bridge DNS and blockchain
- Olive retires from ICANN
- Whois policy published without life-saving disclosure rule
- UK gov takes its lead from ICANN on DNS abuse
- Tucows reports 2023 results
- Twitter “completely unresponsive” on clickable domains
- ICANN spends $5 million more than planned in first fiscal half
- .art takes a million domains off its premium list
- KeyTrap ‘the most devastating vulnerability ever found in DNSSEC’
- Freenom settles $500 million Meta lawsuit and will exit domain business
- New gTLD lottery to return in 2026
- First GlobalBlock prices revealed — they ain’t cheap
- Domain universe grows on new gTLDs despite .com shrinkage
- D3 signs up crypto gTLD client number five
- GoDaddy reports strong domains growth
- How to qualify for a $40,000 gTLD
- Registry service provider evaluation handbook published
- WebUnited inks deal to “mirror” country’s TLD in the blockchain
- GoDaddy project unveils brand-blocking calculator
- Report: Monster “misappropriated” millions from Epik
- .com is shrinking but Verisign raises prices again anyway
- D3 announces fourth crypto new gTLD client
- Donald Trump loses second UDRP case
- UK cybersquatting complaints hit record low
- No excuses! PIR to pay for ALL registries to tackle child abuse
- ICANN insists it is working on linkification
- Namecheap sues ICANN over .org price caps
- GoDaddy offers free Ethereum blockchain integration
- Epik reveals who is running the company
- Epik gets acquired again! The plot thickens…
- Airline gTLD crashes and burns
- First chunks of new gTLD Applicant Guidebook drop
- Epik to reveal its owners soon
- Another crypto firm to apply for a new gTLD
- Monster and Royce are NOT involved in Epik?!
- Nominet to overhaul .uk registry, turn off some services
- Russia blames DNSSEC, not Ukraine, for internet downtime
- Team Internet says revenue beat estimates
- Sold for over $20k, insure.ai and dog.ai back in .ai’s expired names auction
- .ai helps UDRP cases rise in 2023, WIPO says
- Freenom’s domains land at Gandi after termination
- .ru domains fly off the shelf as Western sanctions bite
- ICANN picks its first ever Supreme Court
- Lebanon’s ccTLD going back to Lebanon after ICANN takeover
- ICANN picks the domain it will never, ever release
- ICANN approves domain takedown rules
- Has Epik gone “woke”?
- First bits of new gTLD Applicant Guidebook expected next week
- ICANN bans closed generics for the foreseeable
- You can’t use money to buy .box domains
- After 14 years, ICANN practices what it preaches on IDNs
- Weak demand for private Whois data, ICANN data shows
- .ing doing way better than .meme
- DNS Women barred from ICANN funding?
- Dev releases free open-source TLD registry platform
- INCO flips a gTLD to Identity Digital
- Anguilla fears the .ai junk drop
- Five more gTLDs get launch dates
- $10 million of ICANN cash up for grabs
- Almost 50,000 .ai domains sold in a quarter
- ICANN threatens to regulate your speech [RANT]
- Life insurance company kills dot-brand
- ICANN finds new home for Lebanon’s TLD after founder’s death
- ICANN begs people to use its new Whois service
- Shiba Inu outs itself as crypto new gTLD applicant
- Over 50,000 .ai domains sold in three months
- Amazon planning new push into registrar market?
- Registries and registrars vote ‘Yes’ to new DNS abuse rules
- ICANN predicts flattish 2025 for domain industry
- Fast-growing Gname buys another 150 registrars
- GoDaddy service to let you block domains in over 650 TLDs
- Did I find a murder weapon in a zone file?
- ICANN drops the “man” from Ombudsman
- Have your say on police domain takedown powers
- Most registrars are shunning ICANN’s new Whois system
- Nominet to take over .gov.uk
- ICANN picks Istanbul for 2024 meeting
- ICANN’s private Whois data request service goes live
- .au regs slide on 2LD anniversary
- ICANN accused of power grab over $271 million auction fund
- A registrar is getting blamed for an Israeli war propaganda site
- Two more dot-brands bite the dust
- Google sells five-figure AI domain and six-figure .ing hack
- .blackfriday is still a bit rubbish
- Internet Naming Co acquires five more gTLDs
- Domain universe grows despite .com drag
- Did somebody spend a million bucks on a Google domain hack?
Africa hands coffin nails to DotConnectAfrica evaluators
The African Union and a United Nations commission have formally told ICANN that they don’t support DotConnectAfrica’s bid for .africa.
When it comes to showing governmental support, a necessity under ICANN’s rules for a geographic gTLD applications, the UN Economic Commission for Africa was DCA’s only prayer.
Company CEO Sophia Bekele had managed to get somebody at UNECA to write a letter supporting .africa back in 2008, and DCA has continued to pretend that the letter was relevant even after the entire continent came out in support of rival applicant ZA Central Registry.
During its Independent Review Process appeal, DCA begged the IRP panel to declare that the 2008 letter showed it had the support of the 60% of African governments that it requires to be approved by ICANN.
The panel naturally declined to take this view.
Now UNECA has said in a letter to the African Union Commission (pdf) dated July 20, which has since been forwarded to ICANN:
ECA as United Nations entity is neither a government nor a public authority and therefore is not qualified to issue a letter of support for a prospective applicant in support of their application. In addition, ECA does not have a mandate represent the views or convey the support or otherwise of African governments in matters relating to application for delegation of the gTLD.
…
It is ECA’s position that the August 2008 letter to Ms Bekele cannot be properly considered as a “letter of support or endorsement” with the context of ICANN’s requirements and cannot be used as such.
The AUC itself has also now confirmed for the umpteenth time, in a September 29 letter (pdf), that it doesn’t support the DCA bid either. It said:
Any reliance by DCA in its application… proclaiming support or endorsement by the AUC, must be dismissed. The AUC does not support the DCA application and, if any such support was initially provided, it has subsequently been withdrawn with the full knowledge of DCA even prior to the commencement of ICANN’s new gTLD application process.
The AUC went on to say that if DCA is claiming support from any individual African government, such claims should be treated “with the utmost caution and sensitivity”.
That’s because a few years ago African Union member states all signed up to a declaration handing authority over .africa to the AUC.
The AUC ran an open process to find a registry operator. DCA consciously decided to not participate, proclaiming the process corrupt, and ZACR won.
The new letters are relevant because DCA is currently being evaluated for the second time by ICANN’s independent Geographic Names Panel, which has to decide whether DCA has the support of 60% of African governments.
ZACR passed its GNP review largely due to a letter of support from the AUC.
If DCA does not have the same level of support, its application will fail for the second time.
The 2008 UNECA letter was the only thing DCA had left showing any kind of support from any governmental authority.
Now that’s gone, does this mean the DCA application is dead?
No. DCA has a track record of operating irrationally and throwing good money after bad. There’s every chance that when it fails the Geographic Names Review it will simply file another Request for Reconsideration and then another IRP, delaying the delegation of .africa for another year or so.
You’ll be writing about .africa for the next 10 years at this rate!
Then, ZACR should go ahead in administering .africa (period)
Until the appeals etc., are resolved .africa is stuck
The tough question is how much accountability is enough; some applicants have received unfair treatment, while others that were treated fairly are stalling other members of the contention set using every mechanism possible in an unfair way. A possible solution would be an outcome that came with penalties, so this factor can also be assessed as part of the panel work.
I’m sure that by tomorrow DCA will have put out a statement that support cannot be revoked and this is further proof of a vast conspiracy against them.
Me and the other conspirators are not due to meet until this evening. I’ll let you know what we decide.
You are right, according to the rulebook it can’t be withdrawn.
Wrong!
Read section 2.2.1.4.3
“It is also possible that a government may withdraw its
support for an application at a later time, including after
the new gTLD has been delegated, if the registry operator
has deviated from the conditions of original support or nonobjection.”
Right!
if the registry operator has deviated from the conditions of original support or nonobjection.
As I recall, the ICANN application period closed in 2012 and this letters seem to be dated 2015. Why would this be relevant?
Because you need to show support for your application, and this shows unequivocally you don’t have any.
The ‘Secretary’ aka legal Advisor is from Ghana. I can imagine this undo DCA letter like the AUC one, smells of Nii Quaynor shenanigans, lest ‘legal advisor’ be his cousin. Real Funny!!
Really, is that where you’re going Soph?
Going on the timing I’m guessing the DCA application is currently being evaluated by the Geographic Names Panel who are probably checking the DCA claims of support. These letters would have been created by UNECA and the AUC in response to questions from the GNP.
This time everyone will go out of their way to make sure all the paperwork is done by the book in expectation of yet another DCA IRP.
Not just support; Geo Names Panel also evaluates oppositions. A Geo applicant needs both support and lack of opposition from relevant public authorities. Kevin’s title of “handing coffin nails” is extremely accurate, because even if DCA could show support from one country, the AUC opposition is fatal.
The evaluation should be based on its merit and not objection. The job of GNP is not to accept objection
Page 2-18 of the guidebook: “In the case of an application for a string appearing
on either of the lists above, documentation of
support will be required from at least 60% of the
respective national governments in the region, and
there may be no more than one written statement
of objection to the application from relevant
governments in the region and/or public authorities
associated with the continent or the region.”
So yes, looking at objections is the job of geo names panel as well.
This letter should be dismissed as irregular and will be interpreted as direct and willful interference to prejudice the evaluation, and as sabotage of endorsement. If the GNP is smart, it will dismiss it.
You guys are hilarious. I’m going to miss you.
Why would GNP send questions to UNECA and AUC when they did not do that for ZACR. Does by the book only apply to DCA discriminately? Perhaps they should instead be writing an updated letter for DCA to be consistent with their actions with ZACR.!
The GNP most certainly did send clarifying questions to the AUC while evaluating the ZACR bid.
That was in the IRP transcript.
Katie, are you involved in this story?
To increase on Kevin’s point, Geo TLDs need to show *continuous* support, not one-time support. Every Geo TLD, including the already contracted ones, can have their contract challenged by the public authority that granted the support in a court local to that authority. So ICANN may ask as many times as they see please if support is still there or not, before or after contracting.
you mean ICANN could write support letters themselves for their favorated applicant before or after contracting in tangent with the public authorities? I get you.
Page 2-20 of the guidebook:
“It is also possible that a government may withdraw its
support for an application at a later time, including after
the new gTLD has been delegated, if the registry operator
has deviated from the conditions of original support or nonobjection.”
A good counter analysis to Murphy by DNA:
http://domainnewsafrica.com/auc-coerces-uneca-write-irregular-letter-panel-dot-africa-endorsement-dca/
Thanks Soph! Great story!
By the way Murphy, as per the DNA blog you should have been accurate in your reporting when you misrepresented DCA’s endorsement from UNECA as DCA got to ” someone to write” ….blah blah… DCA in fact obtained endorsement from the ex UNECA top man executive secretary, which looks like the new Top man refused to undo. !
By The Way, UNECA has no standing in supporting geo applicationss, so it’s difficult to understand why it keeps being mentioned, no matter it withdrew any support… it’s also difficult to grasp why DCA keeps posting these non-sense comments at forums where people know better. Try addressing a crowd that will actually fall for these misrepresentations of the process instead…