> > 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 <o...@delong.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 1, 2021, at 04:21 , Tom Beecher <beec...@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 >> >> >
