[Community-Discuss] Correction to my previous email

[Ronald F. Guilmette]

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