In message <[email protected]>, "Eddy Kayihura" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Concerning the case SC/COM/WRT/000295/2020 (Afri Holdings Ltd, Netstyle A. >Ltd & Elad Cohen v/s African Network Information Centre (AfriNIC) LTD), you >may note that the matter is still pending before the Hon. Judge in Chambers >of the Mauritian Supreme Court as we are still at the stage of exchange of >pleadings (i.e. affidavits). Otherwise, AFRINIC stands advised that >proceedings before the Judge in Chambers are very confidential in nature and >access to the pleadings is limited to parties and of course the judge only. I am sorry that I have been unable to respond to this until now, but as many of you may already be aware, we have had many highly distracting issues of our own here in the U.S. in recent days. I am pleased to report however that as of today, democracy in the United States has triumphed, we now have a new President, and hopefully there will in future be a lot let silliness in our politics at the national level, and we may look forward to better and more respectful relations with other countries the world over. Withe respect to the current and ongoing court case against AFRINIC in Mauritius, I must stipulate up frint that I know exactly -zero- about the laws of Mauritius, and thus I am wholly unqualified to render any sort of opinion about that, especially given that neither nor anyone else has even seen the legal complaint yet. That having been said however, I would just like to offer the observation that in U.S. courts, at least, there exists a longstanding notion of "duty of care" where one party may be obliged, legally, to exercise some restrain, or to undertake some actions to protect the interests of another, at least in some circumstances where there is a clear "duty of care" from the first party to the second party. In the context of IP address blocks assigned by any Regional Internet Registry under the terms of a written contract there is quite obviously a duty of care that runs from the RIR to the registrant. In the case of so-called "Legacy" blocks however, where no such written contract exists, it is not at all clear to me that there exists, in any sensible legal system, -any- duty of care, or indeed any duty whatosoever that is owed by the RIR to any party or parties that is alleging some rights to the block(s) in question. For this reason, I personally remain sanguine about the probable outcome of the ongoing litigation against AFRINIC. I don't think that AFRINIC owes anybody anything specific with regards to -any- legacy block. Quite obviously, Eddy has repeatedly asserted that he is not at liberty to says anything at all of consequence regarding this ongoing litigation. I still take issue with that position. I feel it is both wrong and wrong- headed in that it fails to respect the clear rights of the dues-paying members of AFRINIC to at least know what they are all being sued for. But as is clear by now, my opinions on this point carry no weight at all amd I must just learn to live with that. Nontheless, I do think that it is the least that Eddy & the Board should do to at least post some sorts of generalized opinions regarding -their- appraisal of the chances for success in the current litigation, which has now been ongoing for many many months. Surely, they must have at least some general feeling by now for the prospects for success. It would be Good to hear some comment on that from Eddy. Can we all have some reason to be hopeful, in this new year, that justice will be served, and that the carpetbagging marauders from outside the region will be turned away at the gates, and that in the end, the only rewards they will retain for their schemes will be the taste of ashes and some large legal bills for which they alone will be responsible? Regards, rfg _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
