I'm not going to go line-by-line and point out all of the falacies and logical inconsistancies contained within all 700+ lines of Paul Hjul's inadequate attempts to refute what I have previously noted about his errors in calling AFRINIC and the AFRINIC community "xenophobic" and a "litigious environment". I'm not going to do that primarily because it is a a waste of time -- because no one is at at all likely to read his 700+ lines or my detailed refutation thereof.
Instead I'll just respond, briefly, to Paul's continued insistance that AFRINIC has created a "litigious environment". As evidence for this theory, Paul cites the following four points. As noted below, I actually agree with him on the first of these four points (and I will reveal some relevant info that has not yet appeared in the press) but I feel that Paul's other three arguments are utter rubbish, as noted below. > * Afrinic's legal advisors telling members that if they are unhappy to sue I am in complete agreement that this public statement on the part of Ashok, which has now been reported to me by numerous sources, should have resulted in Ashok's termination as a representative of AFRINIC by the Board at the time, and certainly within no more that 15 minutes, at most, after he made it, and that his childish outburst, even though it occurred many years ago now, *still* and to this day warrants Ashok's immediate termination by AFRINIC. With respect to this one exceptionally unfortunate episode, which happpened many years and two CEO's ago now, and under a different Board than the present one, Paul is arguably correct that AFRINIC took a distinctly and unforgivably "litigious" position. The Board at the time should have fired Ashok's ass for this confrontational and unhelpful little outburst, and the current Board should do so now without further delay. Unfortunately, neither the Board at the time, nor any subsequent ones have had the necessary backbone to rid the organization of this pernicious and counterproductive staff member... undoubtedly the same one who drafted and forced everyone, even Board members, to sign the all-smothering NDAs under which the current Board and staff still labor, and which apparently renders even Board and staff visits to the restrooms a matter of state secret, the divulging of which can be punished by some colossal Breach of Contract lawsuit, courtesy of Ashok's firm, no doubt, and most probably at his usual hourly rate, because you know, non-profit or not, he doesn't work for nothing. As if his other destructive influences on AFRINIC, as cited above, were not enough, it has now been confirmed to me by multiple independent sources that Ashok worked as counsel for AFRINIC in its early days, and then went to work, briefly, for Lu Heng... a counterparty to AFRINIC in certain ongoing negotiations at the time... and then went back to work for AFRINIC. To say that this sequence of events, which has been reported to me now by multiple reliable and knowledgable sources, almost defies belief would be an understatement. Ashok's personal "revolving door" which saw him go from regulator to regulated and then back again, is and was, I believe, more than sufficient grounds, not only for his aburpt and instantaneous termination as legal counsel for AFRINIC, but for AFRINIC to file a formal ethics complaint about Ashok with the Mauritius Bar Association for his clever little two-step. Not to put too fine a point on it, the AFRINIC Board at the time of these events was clearly unable to muster the outrange necessary to fire Ashok's ass for any or all of these evident lapses of judgement and ethics. Meanwhile the CEO at the time also demurred from the task of firing Ashok's ass, perhaps because he had a multitude of his own set of ethical issues and lapses, and he perhaps found Ashok's continued presence helpful: https://mybroadband.co.za/news/internet/390378-afrinic-hired-a-convicted-criminal-to-look-after-valuable-it-assets.html Now on to Paul's 3 other arguments in support of the proposition that AFRINIC has created a "litigious environment"... all of which can be easily seen to be utter rubbish. > * Neglecting to include dispute resolution clauses in the RSA. Why should they have done that? Is "dispute resolution" a standard part of all of the other RSAs in all of the other regions? If so, then the blame for this omission once again lies at the feet of Ashok, and only Ashok. If the other RIRs have incorporated dispute resolution clauses into their standard RSA contracts, and if Ashok never even bothered to look at what any of the other RIRs have done, then it doesn't make the whole AFRINIC organization a "litigious environment". It just makes Ashok a really crappy lawyer. And THAT is an eminently fixable problem. For all of the reasons above, and perhaps for this one too, AFRINIC should fire his ass. Not like after a grace period. Yesterday. In any case, it is up to the resource members to actually *read* the contracts they are signing and to suggest changes if changes are needed BEFORE THEY SIGN, and not eight years after they have done so. If Lu Heng didn't comprehend what he was signing, that hardly makes AFRINIC into a "litigious environment". And if he either needed or wanted dispute resolution clauses, then why didn't he ask for those eight years ago? Lu is like the guy who gets diagnosed with terminal cancer and who -then- rushes out to buy as much life insurance as he possibly can. Sorry. No. Thanks for playing, but that's not actually how any of this works. > * Acting in a manner in which a reasonable court could conclude that the > organization did not afford natural justice. Where may I find the tenets of this "natural justice" you sspeak of codified in writing Paul? Is that something that you just made up, or are you referring to the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights? If the latter, I've looked in there and I can't find anything that refers at all to globally routable, non-RFC-reserved IPv4 addresses. > * Invoking a termination to a contract when this act could represent a breach "Could represent a breach"?? OK, as long as you are playing attorney Paul, please point me at the specific clause within the RSA that says that AFRINIC terminating the RSA contract *does* in fact represent a Breach of Contract on the part of AFRINIC. No hurry. I'll wait. Regards, rfg _______________________________________________ Community-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
