> > 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 <sa...@cluecentral.net> wrote: > ----- On Aug 30, 2021, at 11:18 AM, Rubens Kuhl rube...@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 <sa...@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 >