Re: An update on the AfriNIC situation

[Rubens Kuhl <rubensk () gmail com>]

> > But you would need to be upfront with that, including mentioning that
> > your upstreams are not from Africa and your installations won't be in
> > Africa.
> > Otherwise you applied for number resources under false pretenses, and
> > will bear the risk of such.
>
> Again, fair enough. And what happens if the same hosting company is
> struggling and now decides to offer its services to other regions
> as well? Are they now out of compliance and at risk to have their
> precious number resources revoked?

If they will provide services to both the original region and
different regions, they should apply to number resources from a region
that does not have such restrictions, like the region where they
physically host servers, and divide their provisioning between
original regions and alternate regions.

> My point is not that you are wrong (your interpretation of the clause
> is very reasonable). My point is that different people have a different
> understanding of the plain language of that clause. And that is assuming
> that it applies, as I believe that CI is arguing that it does not.

And they might have a point there, but I don't see them living up to
whatever they wrote in their application for number resources.


> 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.

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.


Rubens