It strikes me that ( without pointing at anyone in particular ) that there's a bit of absolutism trending in this conversation.
It's possible for many things in this list to be true.
- It's possible that AFRINIC may have been following it's policies accurately at the time of the initial allocations,and the current leadership was overstepping their bounds trying to reclaim them.
- It's possible that AFRINIC may NOT have been following it's own policies at the time of the initial allocations, and the current leadership is trying to correct those past mistakes.
- It's possible that CI accurately represented information to AFRINIC.
- It's possible that CI did not.
- It's possible that CI has, at all times,been properly in compliance with AFRNIC policies.
- It's possible that CI has not.
- It's possible that CI may been been following the letter, if not the spirit of the policies.
- It's possible that AFRINIC was intentionally delaying restoration of the allocations after the court order.
- It's possible that AFRINIC was a little slow to respond, waiting on advice from legal counsel before taking action.
I think we could mostly agree that while potentially frustrating ,such things can and have happened in the past,and can and have been rectified.
However, where I think we ALL should be able to agree is that CI's garnishment action is exceptionally punitive and out of line.