> On Aug 30, 2021, at 06:30, Rubens Kuhl <rube...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 3:39 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 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.
>
> Are you saying that there was no AFRINIC policy at allocation time
> that prevented usage outside Africa ?
Not only then, but now as well. The only such policy in the CPM is enshrined
within the soft landing policy and applies only to registrations made after
exhaustion phase 1 started.
>> AFRINIC has violated court orders and acted in bad faith at virtually every
>> opportunity in this process.
>
> Nope, see Tom's message right before this one.
The court ordered AFRINIC to reinstate cloud innovation on the 13th. They
deliberately delayed until the 15th hoping to win a hearing that morning. They
did not get what they wanted, instead being admonished by the judge.
>> 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.
>
> It's not just John as you have seen by now. And besides the case
> merits, the main issue is CI trying to win by suffocation. And that's
> why carpet bombing those IP blocks might be needed so the next scumbag
> doesn't try the same trick with someone else.
This is neither a fair nor accurate portrayal of the situation. Further, by
acting as it had, AFRINIC was the one which tried to suffocate CI first.
You may not like Lu and/or his business model. I’m not a fan of his business
model myself, but it is technically permitted under existing policy. If the
community doesn’t like that fact, there is a process to change the policies.
Terminating a member based on rules which don’t actually exist, on the other
hand sets a very dangerous and corrupt precedent and is a threat to the trust
we all want to have in the RIR system.
Owen
