I don't think Mr. Paul Wilson has seen this e-mail because I have not
seen any replies to it.
I am sure the Director of APNIC does not ignore e-mails that are
directed to him and are of paramount importance for APNIC and it's
community so I am sure that we will probably see a response soon.
Elvis
On 8/1/22 12:33 AM, pure kair wrote:
Interesting email, looking forward Mr. Wilson to respond.
I found there’s some words are garbled, I’d make it readable in below.
-------
Dear Paul,
I am grateful that you have publicly stated your position on behalf of
APNIC and we are looking forward to public clarifications from the other
signatories of the letter.
With respect the letter wasn’t mis-constructed, members could see what
the purpose of the letter was which was a blatant attempt to try and
interfere in the legal and democratic principles of a foreign country.
Members understood that the purpose of the letter was to appeal for some
level of protection from civil lawsuits. You seem to have forgotten,
that with the exception of limited sovereign immunity for Heads of
State, no one is above law.
The arrogance and behaviour outlined in your response is just not
acceptable. I am sure you now appreciate how damaging the letter is to
NRO that could now be open to legal proceedings in Mauritius.
Whilst I welcome your public response, your response is far more
illuminating in what it failed to cover than the explanation you
attempted to provide.
As such, I set out a number of questions below, which members would be
grateful for a full and frank response to. Other signatories of the
letter may also want to join you and to take the opportunity to answer
these questions personally. I have numbered all of the questions for
ease of your response. If you could provide your answers next the
question number so that members can easily see that you have provided
answers to all questions.
What isn’t immediately clear to members is who decided to pursue this
ill-judged and potentially illegal attempt at influence. You wrote that
"The NRO's letter was a joint effort by the legal teams of the five RIRs”.
In the spirit of openness and cooperation, could you please confirm to
members:
1.
Whose idea was it to send the letter?
2.
Who drafted the letter?
3.
Did signatories or their legal teams to the letter make any
amendments to the content or where they asked just to sign the text
without any input.
It is concerning you haven’t answered all of the questions raised by
members and would urge you to do so.
4.
Whether the "international organization" defined in the Mauritius
IOCPI Act of 1971 was what was really meant in the letter that was sent?
5.
What international agreement Mauritius is party to or intends to
become a party to that would apply to AFRINIC?
6.
What were the thought processes within the RIRs, ICANN NRO and their
legal teams on why AFRINIC as an organization, AND some of its
designated representatives and potentially family, should be
extended something that effectively resembles an immunity by the
government of the country the company operates in?
7.
Your thinking on why the Government of Mauritius should extend
something that might contain clauses for the purposes of immunity to
a domestic registered company?
8.
What would be the judicial process for such an international
organization, that does not have its own internal judicial body, in
any kind of dispute that would normally be handled through a civil
or criminal law process of the host country?
9.
How would any of this be beneficial to AFRINIC's members (customers)
or anyone else for that matter? ("to protect ourselves from lawsuits
from the people who rent IP addresses elsewhere" is not what I am
looking for. )
You will note the judgement of the Supreme Court of Mauritius in favour
of Cloud Innovation against AFRINIC.
10.
Can you confirm that you have read the judgement and understand the
importance of it?
11.
Can you confirm that the claims made in the letter – including the
acquisition of being a “vexatious litigant” are wholly without merit?
12.
Can you confirm that you withdraw that remark and what actions you
plan to take to rectify the reputational damage to the relevant parties?
Finally, it was heartening to read that you share members view that the
internet is a bottom up membership based organisation. It follows then
that you do not support the attempts by the suspended CEO of AFRINIC to
co-opt Directors to AFRINIC via ATU. Such action and behaviour goes
directly against the principles you support. Therefore could you answer
the following questions.
13.
Do you support the appointment of Directors via intergovernmental
bodies such as the ATU?
14.
Do you support the suspended CEO of AFRINIC’s attempts at bypassing
court orders and members in the attempting to appoint ATU nominated
directors?
Thank you for your time in dealing with these important matters. Members
look forward to reading your answers. We also look forward to receiving
the response of all the other signatories.
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
--
Kind regards,
Elvis Daniel Velea
Chief Executive Officer
V4Escrow LLC
https://www.v4escrow.com
[email protected]
+1-702-970-0921
_______________________________________________
apnic-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
