Interesting email, looking forward Mr. Wilson to respond.
I found there’s some words are garbled, I’d make it readable in below.
-------
Dear Paul,
I am grateful that you have publicly stated your position on behalf of APNIC
and we are looking forward to public clarifications from the other signatories
of the letter.
With respect the letter wasn’t mis-constructed, members could see what the
purpose of the letter was which was a blatant attempt to try and interfere in
the legal and democratic principles of a foreign country.
Members understood that the purpose of the letter was to appeal for some level
of protection from civil lawsuits. You seem to have forgotten, that with the
exception of limited sovereign immunity for Heads of State, no one is above law.
The arrogance and behaviour outlined in your response is just not acceptable. I
am sure you now appreciate how damaging the letter is to NRO that could now be
open to legal proceedings in Mauritius.
Whilst I welcome your public response, your response is far more illuminating
in what it failed to cover than the explanation you attempted to provide.
As such, I set out a number of questions below, which members would be grateful
for a full and frank response to. Other signatories of the letter may also want
to join you and to take the opportunity to answer these questions personally. I
have numbered all of the questions for ease of your response. If you could
provide your answers next the question number so that members can easily see
that you have provided answers to all questions.
What isn’t immediately clear to members is who decided to pursue this
ill-judged and potentially illegal attempt at influence. You wrote that "The
NRO's letter was a joint effort by the legal teams of the five RIRs”.
In the spirit of openness and cooperation, could you please confirm to members:
Whose idea was it to send the letter?
Who drafted the letter?
Did signatories or their legal teams to the letter make any amendments to the
content or where they asked just to sign the text without any input.
It is concerning you haven’t answered all of the questions raised by members
and would urge you to do so.
Whether the "international organization" defined in the Mauritius IOCPI Act of
1971 was what was really meant in the letter that was sent?
What international agreement Mauritius is party to or intends to become a party
to that would apply to AFRINIC?
What were the thought processes within the RIRs, ICANN NRO and their legal
teams on why AFRINIC as an organization, AND some of its designated
representatives and potentially family, should be extended something that
effectively resembles an immunity by the government of the country the company
operates in?
Your thinking on why the Government of Mauritius should extend something that
might contain clauses for the purposes of immunity to a domestic registered
company?
What would be the judicial process for such an international organization, that
does not have its own internal judicial body, in any kind of dispute that would
normally be handled through a civil or criminal law process of the host country?
How would any of this be beneficial to AFRINIC's members (customers) or anyone
else for that matter? ("to protect ourselves from lawsuits from the people who
rent IP addresses elsewhere" is not what I am looking for. )
You will note the judgement of the Supreme Court of Mauritius in favour of
Cloud Innovation against AFRINIC.
Can you confirm that you have read the judgement and understand the importance
of it?
Can you confirm that the claims made in the letter – including the acquisition
of being a “vexatious litigant” are wholly without merit?
Can you confirm that you withdraw that remark and what actions you plan to take
to rectify the reputational damage to the relevant parties?
Finally, it was heartening to read that you share members view that the
internet is a bottom up membership based organisation. It follows then that you
do not support the attempts by the suspended CEO of AFRINIC to co-opt Directors
to AFRINIC via ATU. Such action and behaviour goes directly against the
principles you support. Therefore could you answer the following questions.
Do you support the appointment of Directors via intergovernmental bodies such
as the ATU?
Do you support the suspended CEO of AFRINIC’s attempts at bypassing court
orders and members in the attempting to appoint ATU nominated directors?
Thank you for your time in dealing with these important matters. Members look
forward to reading your answers. We also look forward to receiving the response
of all the other signatories.
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
