Changes

The [[Independent Objector]] (IO) is a non-partisan, contracted appointee whose role was mandated by the applicant guidebook for [[ICANN]]'s [[New gTLD Program]], and who is responsible for officially objecting to new gTLDs that are dangerous to the public good. This process also involves reviewing "controversial applications," those that have received significant public comments, and investigating whether a public need for objection is provided for tin these comments. Thus, the Independent Objector issued a preliminary report on .africa, noting that DCA's bid for .africa had received many comments that call the applicant illegitimate and its application for .africa unwarranted and unsupported. The IO notes that .africa is clearly a geographic name, and that as such needs representative support of the regional government, which DCA's application for .africa does not have, thus, the IO noted that it will not likely pass its geographic names review test. The IO goes on to argue that communication with DCA has not convinced him that a community objection from him is not warranted, and seems to only be unnecessary when considering the fact that he strongly believes that DCA will fail the geographic names test and therefore not need a community objection to discredit its application.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independent-objector-s-comments-on-controversial-applications/africa-general-comment/ Africa General Comment, Independent Objector] 5 March 2013</ref>

The [[Independent Objector]] (IO) is a non-partisan, contracted appointee whose role was mandated by the applicant guidebook for [[ICANN]]'s [[New gTLD Program]], and who is responsible for officially objecting to new gTLDs that are dangerous to the public good. This process also involves reviewing "controversial applications," those that have received significant public comments, and investigating whether a public need for objection is provided for tin these comments. Thus, the Independent Objector issued a preliminary report on .africa, noting that DCA's bid for .africa had received many comments that call the applicant illegitimate and its application for .africa unwarranted and unsupported. The IO notes that .africa is clearly a geographic name, and that as such needs representative support of the regional government, which DCA's application for .africa does not have, thus, the IO noted that it will not likely pass its geographic names review test. The IO goes on to argue that communication with DCA has not convinced him that a community objection from him is not warranted, and seems to only be unnecessary when considering the fact that he strongly believes that DCA will fail the geographic names test and therefore not need a community objection to discredit its application.<ref>[http://www.independent-objector-newgtlds.org/english-version/the-independent-objector-s-comments-on-controversial-applications/africa-general-comment/ Africa General Comment, Independent Objector] 5 March 2013</ref>

===GAC Advice===

===GAC Objection===

The DCA bid for .africa was only one of two strings that received a unanimous [[GAC]] Objection, the other being [[.gcc]]. The objection is intended to be a very strong recommendation that the [[ICANN Board]] should not allow an application to be approved.<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee GAC Beijing Communique Download from, GACweb.ICANN.org] Retrieved 30 May 2013</ref>

The DCA bid for .africa was only one of two strings that received a unanimous [[GAC]] Objection, the other being [[.gcc]]. The objection is intended to be a very strong recommendation that the [[ICANN Board]] should not allow an application to be approved.<ref>[https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/Governmental+Advisory+Committee GAC Beijing Communique Download from, GACweb.ICANN.org] Retrieved 30 May 2013</ref>