[Community-Discuss] South Africa ISPA Statement on Recent AFRINIC developments

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 3, 2021, at 19:10 , Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:

> 

> In message <354F6704-0224-4525-B26B-D9B259FB2716 at delong.com>, 

> Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> 

>>> Show me where AFRINIC took *any* action to in any way remove any of its

>>> bank assets or to place any of them in any place outside of the jurisdiction

>>> of, or beyond the control of the court.

>> 

>> AFRINIC has relatively limited income. They have a burn rate that is not far

>> from their income. Their day to day expenses, especially in light of their

>> propensity for board travel, etc. could easily be used to dissipate a substantial

>> fraction of their current holdings...

> 

> That's bullshit.  The entire AFRINIC budget for 2015, which I saw, was

> something just a bit north of $4 million USD.  I suspect that the

> organization proabbly has at least 1/4 of that amount on hand and in

> the bank at any given time to pay expenses.


AFRINIC bills all renewals at the same time annually at the beginning of
the year, so they have almost no revenue coming for the rest of the year.
So any money they spend between now and the conclusion of the case
is a dissipation of assets that might be subject to the judgment.


> So where exactly do you think the jet-setting board members are going to

> fly off to that is going to cost even a "substantial fraction" of that?

> Mars?


Substantial fraction? Probably not, but they’re so far under water for even
a fraction of an adverse judgment that I don’t see any reason not to hang
on to as many assets as possible.


> Owen, the more you talk, the more laughable and the more extreme you get.


Your perspective differs from mine.


>> which fall well short of what the courts

>> consider to be a likely judgment in the case.

> 

> Stop lying and stop putting words into the mouth of the judge.  The court

> has rendered -no- opinion on the "likely judgment in the case”.


Oh, really? My understanding is that such an asset seizure is generally only
granted if there is reasonable probability of the case succeeding in the judges
estimation.


>  Indeed,

> the court hasn't even begun to consider the merits of the case.  All that

> has happened is that one judge made a decision to do exactly and only

> what Lu Heng's high-priced and undoubtedly well-connected Appleby lawyer

> asked that judge to do, and only in a one-sided EX PARTE context, where

> only one side was even present to argue its side of things.


Well, let’s see what happens today. Should be interesting.


> That's not even a remotely fair way to decide such weighty and consequential

> matters, and it reeks like a whore house at low tide.


Interesting visual.


>>>> The only reason the restraint "threatens" the

>>>> existence of the organization is because the organizations finances have

>>>> not been arranged in a proper way.

>>> 

>>> That is also bullshit.

>> 

>> Not entirely so, no.

> 

> Prove it.

> 

> Where is the actual evidence that AFRINIC's "finances have not been arranged

> in a proper way"?


It wasn’t my original statement, so I’ll leave further comment on it to the person
who made the statement.

Owen