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