Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

>  They attacked a member on the basis of violations of rules that don’t
> actually exist.

You continually refer to AFRINIC's actions as an 'attack'. However, that
would seem to be an open question of law , which AFRINIC cannot litigate
because they're have no access to their money.

On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 3:40 PM Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:

> On Sep 1, 2021, at 04:21 , Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc> wrote:
>
> AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal
> > expenses
> > for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with
> > salaries
> > or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler
> > heads at
> > AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before
> > they run
> > out of money from that reprieve.
>
> It's good that people are still being paid.
>
> That being said, while some may have the opinion that AFRINIC's actions
> have been 'objectionable' , others have the opinion that their actions were
> justified and proper. Does it not concern you at all that AFRINIC may be
> forced into a 'settlement' because they cannot access their funds due to a
> very dubious claim of damages?
>
>
> I don’t think AFRINIC is being forced into anything. They attacked a
> member on the basis of violations of rules that don’t actually exist. The
> company retaliated by obtaining an injunction. AFRINIC managed to get the
> injunction temporarily lifted on a technicality (largely of AFRINIC’s
> making) and took an opportunity to make an existential attack on the member
> during that brief window of opportunity. AFRINIC then deliberately dragged
> their feet on complying with a court order restoring the injunction.
>
> As such, no, I’m really not concerned about AFRINIC’s ability to avoid
> settling and I utterly reject the idea that the claim of damages is at all
> dubious.
>
> There are enough challenges with the internet in Africa to work through
> already. We shouldn't encourage more difficulties by endorsing strongarm
> tactics that prevent issues from being properly adjudicated in courts.
>
>
> Agreed. Please review the recent conduct of the AFRINIC board in detail in
> this context.
>
> Owen
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 6:59 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> wrote:
>
> > > > I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated
> > > > by the case and the arguments on both sides. The court will have their
> > > > work cut out for them.
> > >
> > > That human cost came not from disagreement on the policies and
> > > contract provisions, but from a vengeful action of financial bullying.
> >
> > Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost?
> >
> > There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC wasn’t able to pay in July,
> > including
> > the CEO (who is one of the major protagonists in creating this problem in
> > the first
> > place). I don’t know who the other two were.
> >
> > Everyone else got paid for July.
> >
> > AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal
> > expenses
> > for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with
> > salaries
> > or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler
> > heads at
> > AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before
> > they run
> > out of money from that reprieve.
> >
> > > I saw my quota of questionable court decisions to automatically agree
> > > with whatever is decided in this case, even if CI loses, but the
> > > arguments from both sides will indeed be very interesting and useful
> > > to close out loopholes in the system.
> >
> > Only if they are ever able to be made public, which is a little iffy
> > given the Mauritian
> > court system. It may well be that only the final ruling is able to be
> > made public.
> >
> > Owen