An update on the AfriNIC situation

Mon Aug 30 19:37:39 UTC 2021

>
> 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 at cluecentral.net> wrote:

> ----- On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:18 AM, Rubens Kuhl rubensk at 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 at 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210830/adc2fc24/attachment.html>