> On Sep 1, 2021, at 04:21 , Tom Beecher <beec...@beecher.cc> wrote: > > AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal expenses > for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with > salaries > or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler heads > at > AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before they > run > out of money from that reprieve. > > It's good that people are still being paid. > > That being said, while some may have the opinion that AFRINIC's actions have > been 'objectionable' , others have the opinion that their actions were > justified and proper. Does it not concern you at all that AFRINIC may be > forced into a 'settlement' because they cannot access their funds due to a > very dubious claim of damages?
I don’t think AFRINIC is being forced into anything. They attacked a member on the basis of violations of rules that don’t actually exist. The company retaliated by obtaining an injunction. AFRINIC managed to get the injunction temporarily lifted on a technicality (largely of AFRINIC’s making) and took an opportunity to make an existential attack on the member during that brief window of opportunity. AFRINIC then deliberately dragged their feet on complying with a court order restoring the injunction. As such, no, I’m really not concerned about AFRINIC’s ability to avoid settling and I utterly reject the idea that the claim of damages is at all dubious. > There are enough challenges with the internet in Africa to work through > already. We shouldn't encourage more difficulties by endorsing strongarm > tactics that prevent issues from being properly adjudicated in courts. Agreed. Please review the recent conduct of the AFRINIC board in detail in this context. Owen > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 6:59 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog@nanog.org > <mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> wrote: > >> I regret the true human cost that Mark pointed out, yet I am fascinated > >> by the case and the arguments on both sides. The court will have their > >> work cut out for them. > > > > That human cost came not from disagreement on the policies and > > contract provisions, but from a vengeful action of financial bullying. > > Not to put too fine a point on this, but what human cost? > > There were exactly 3 employees that AFRINIC wasn’t able to pay in July, > including > the CEO (who is one of the major protagonists in creating this problem in the > first > place). I don’t know who the other two were. > > Everyone else got paid for July. > > AFRINIC has received clearance of enough money to cover their normal expenses > for August and September. As such, there shouldn’t be any problems with > salaries > or “human cost” in those months. Hopefully given that reprieve, cooler heads > at > AFRINIC can prevail and some form of settlement can be achieved before they > run > out of money from that reprieve. > > > I saw my quota of questionable court decisions to automatically agree > > with whatever is decided in this case, even if CI loses, but the > > arguments from both sides will indeed be very interesting and useful > > to close out loopholes in the system. > > Only if they are ever able to be made public, which is a little iffy given > the Mauritian > court system. It may well be that only the final ruling is able to be made > public. > > Owen >
