[Community-Discuss] Updates on the misappropriation of IPv4 resources

Ronald F. Guilmette rfg at tristatelogic.com
Thu Jan 21 06:42:11 UTC 2021

In message <01e101d6d47b$7f2586c0$7d709440$@afrinic.net>,
"Eddy Kayihura" <eddy at afrinic.net> 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

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?


More information about the Community-Discuss mailing list