[Community-Discuss] Correction to my previous email
noah at neo.co.tz
Thu Jul 29 15:34:49 UTC 2021
On Thu, 29 Jul 2021, 08:50 Ronald F. Guilmette, <rfg at tristatelogic.com>
> Paul Hjul has posted to this mailing list a number of well-reasoned
> and eloquently articulated arguments that are more than sensible,
> and with which I agree wholeheartedly. The quotes below are not
> among them.
> In message <
> CAF4kYpvN-OqTh1-jbC5Kctg4vC6Wum62DtP8aYj+VJ9+V6Kbrw at mail.gmail.com>
> Paul Hjul <hjul.paul at gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hopefully the Board and management will quickly
> >make it very clear that partnership in "building Africa's digital future"
> >means collaboration of a global nature. It means devising consensus and
> >action that is aimed at promoting a true digital future and distancing
> >the deleterious xenophobic and regionalist attitudes and discourse that
> >flares up.
> Paul, this is the second time that you have injected these dual epithets,
> "xenophobic" and "regionalist" into the conversation here. I personally
> feel that these terms are both distracting and beneath the otherwise
> admirable level of your discourse. Further, I am not even persuaded
> that the term "regionalist" even is an epithet, even though it is clear
> that you intend us to interpret it that way.
> What is the opposite of "regionalist"? "Globalist"? Assuming so, I would
> be more than happy to debate you, ad infinitum, on the question of whether
> "globalism", writ large, has or has not improved the lot of the lower
> classes globally, and specifically in the third world, or whether its
> primary economic effects have been to make mega-billionaries even richer
> to the point where they can now commute to space via their own private
> rocket ships.
> Paul, if you're going to trumpet the beneficial effects of globalist
> capitalism, then you had best be prepared also to defend its less
> desirable effects as well. Is it right or proper or fair that a
> poor sharecropper in Kenya should go hungry or that his daughter
> should lose an eye for want of a surgeon, all because speculators in
> New York have decided amongst themselves that the global price of
> bulk coffee should be cut in half this week?
> >This brings me back to the fact that the best way to manage the risk which
> >is plaguing the organization is to get as much dispute resolution handled
> >outside of potentially organization shattering litigation.
> So you are in favor of unilateral disarmament on the part of AFRINIC?
> You want them to go cap in hand to all three of the parties that are
> current suing them and beg for a negotiated settlement in each case?
> Maybe we should make you the next U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan.
> >The membership
> >simply do not know how many litigants there are knocking at Afrinic
> Objection your honor! Speculative. Calls for a conclusion not based on
> the facts in evidence.
> I might as well speculate that there are just oodles and oodles of people
> and companies lining up, as we speak, to sue -you-. (How do we know
> there aren't? Can you prove that there aren't any such?)
> >but it
> >is quite clear that there are several cases that need to be handled
> >appropriately and to date the organization has crafted an environment
> >favouring a litigious approach.
> I'll be blunt. That is utter rubbish. AFRINIC did the Right Thing by
> reclaiming blocks of IP addresses which had been -provably- stolen from
> its free pool. Two of those thieving companies sued, apparently based
> on nothing other than bogus disinformation that they themselves had
> manufactured out of their... well... out of thin air. Nothing AFRINIC
> did in either of those two cases consitutes "crafting an environment
> favouring a litigious approach". That is an utterly false, disingenuous,
> and slanderous claim with no basis in fact and I encourage yoy to retract
> More recently, AFRINIC, acting on information that none of us has yet even
> seen, made a decision to reclaim a great deal of IPv4 space from a
> party. In the wake of that decision, THE OTHER PARTY initiated legal
> Once again, your narrative of AFRINIC "crafting an environment favouring
> a litigious approach" falls flat in the cold light of day and the actual
> I'm damn glad that you are not the CEO of my bank. It seems that if you
> were, and if the place got robbed, you would just throw up your hands and
> say "Oh well! Boys will be boys!"
> If the bank got robbed three times in a row, you would blame it on the
> bank and urge the bank president to sit down in arbitration with the
> various robbers.
> We've seen this kind of thing where I live. Not recently but in the past.
> Some people occasionally claim that women who have been molested have only
> themselves to blame because they were wearing skirts that were too short.
> Blame the victim. We don't do this too much here in the U.S. anymore, as
> the practice has been well and widely discredited. The blame now properly
> goes to the perpetrators, NOT to the victims.
> Let's be clear about who, exactly, has "crafted an environment favouring
> a litigious approach". AFRINIC is currently facing three legal actions
> against it. Who initiated each and all of those?
> I'll give you a hint. It wasn't AFRINIC.
> What AFRINIC has done may be right or may be wrong, but AFRINIC is not
> the party that has initiated these legal actions, two of which, at
> least, are based on some of the most provably outrageous frauds ever
> conceived by the mind of man.
> It seems however that you want AFRINIC to sit down amicably with those
> thieves and negotiate with them so that they each get to keep half of
> what they have provably stolen. Doing so would only add disgrace to
> dishonor, and I, for one, sincerly hope that AFRINIC does not do so.
Well thought out submission Ronald.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Community-Discuss