> On Aug 29, 2021, at 12:48 , Jay Hennigan <j...@west.net> wrote:
>
> On 8/29/21 11:42, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
>
>> It would seem reasonable to leave the whole issue up to the courts,
>> instead of engaging in contempt of foreign courts, and to stop the
>> vigilante justice against any of the parties, especially the end users
>> who are not even a party to this whole dispute.
>
> The end users are an indirect party.
>
> Assume someone were in the business of stealing cars, forging their titles,
> and selling them to innocent third parties. A police officer pulling someone
> over for speeding might compare the VIN on the title to that on the car and
> discover that it was stolen. The stolen property would be returned to its
> owner and the end user purchaser would be out of luck other than having
> recourse against the thief.
>
> The same principle applies to someone who innocently accepts counterfeit
> money.
Sure, but that’s not exactly what happened here. There’s a limit to what I can
say, but the already public facts show
that:
AFRINIC started this fight by threatening to revoke Cloud Innovations address
space.
Cloud Innovation is disputing this revocation on the basis that it has not
violated the RSA, CPM, or Bylaws as they are written.
AFRINIC has a history of making up process as they go along and violating their
own rules whenever it suits them.
AFRINIC has violated court orders and acted in bad faith at virtually every
opportunity in this process.
As such, I think vigilante action and/or trying this case here on NANOG is
probably not the best idea. I realize it’s easy to sympathize with John and he
puts forth a good story, but there is more to the story than what John has
represented here.
Owen
