Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> After "consideration of the
> affidavit" the court allowed "up to" $50 million to be frozen. Whatever the
> merits of the affidavit are, it indicates that the court looked at the
> facts,
> made a determination and based on that ordered the asset freeze.

There's an important distinction to be made here.

The Supreme Court of Mauritius did not ORDER the asset freeze. The order
AUTHORIZED CI to garnish $50MUSD of AFRINIC's assets "at it's own risks and
perils" .

This means that if AFRINIC countersues CI , and it is found in court that
CI did not have a valid claim to AFRINIC's assets, CI will be liable for
damages.



On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:09 PM Sabri Berisha <sabri () cluecentral net> wrote:

> ----- On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:18 AM, Rubens Kuhl rubensk () gmail com wrote:
>
> Hello Rubens,
>
> First and foremost, I appreciate that you're keeping it civil.
>
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 2:35 PM Sabri Berisha <sabri () cluecentral net>
> wrote:
>
> > > The learned people on this list do not strike me as the kind of person
> to
> > > go out and engage in vigilante justice if a court decides against them.
> The
> > > very fabric of our civilized society depends on us resolving our
> conflicts
> > > in court, not out on the (virtual) streets. You may disagree with a
> ruling
> > > but I implore you to respect it.
> >
> > As previously mentioned, this is about something that doesn't involve
> > a court ruling, at least not yet, but a seizure request made by the
> > party to attack the sustainability of the RIR. Rulings that people
> > disagree have their own way inside the court system to be dealt with.
>
> I really, really don't want to upset Mel more than he already is, but Owen
> shared a link with an actual order of the court. After "consideration of
> the
> affidavit" the court allowed "up to" $50 million to be frozen. Whatever the
> merits of the affidavit are, it indicates that the court looked at the
> facts,
> made a determination and based on that ordered the asset freeze. That
> sounds
> like a (preliminary) ruling to me. I don't necessarily agree with it due
> to
> the implications it has on African internet operations, and, as Mark
> rightfully
> brought up, all the employment that depends on it, but I have to respect
> it.
>
> And don't get me wrong: I am not informed enough as to the dispute itself
> so
> I'm unable to form an opinion on who is right and who is wrong here. People
> whom I deeply respect on this list are on opposite sides so that adds to
> the
> confusion. I am, however, concerned with the operational implications.
> That's
> why I donated to the keep-Afrinic-alive-fund.
>
> I've ran an RBL for years, which many people used. It closed down more than
> a decade ago. Out of 100 DNS queries I logged just now with a quick tcpdump
> on one of my three DNS servers, I counted 51 for rbl.cluecentral.net.
> That's
> why I'm advocating to reconsider your carpet-bombing (filter into oblivion)
> recommendation. People don't remove them.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sabri