Ronald F. Guilmette rfg at tristatelogic.com
Wed Jun 1 22:14:30 UTC 2022

In message <AM7PR03MB6451058C723A7B05D58D7235EEDF9 at AM7PR03MB6451.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>, 
Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com> wrote:

>Anyway - my guess is that once again the board will ignore this and once
>again we will have to let a court decide. I just wish I was wrong and they
>would take the simple way out - postpone the meeting - send a proper notice
>of meeting and withdraw these bizarre stipulations - but I suspect instead
>they will take the route of forcing this into court and wasting still more
>of members money - in top of the $600k they have already wasted by forcing
>members into a position where litigation was the only option

Mr. Putin has asserted that he had no other option than to go to war with

There are always other options.  If not, then why does every country on earth
employ its own diplomatic corp?

Has anyone considered binding arbitration as a means to resolve these various
controversies?  It seems to me that that might be a more cost efficient,
and almost certainly a more time-efficient manner of resolving a number of
outstanding disputes that various parties have with AFRINIC at present.

Andrew is right, of course, to lament the high costs of traditional legal actions.
But in which instances has AFRINIC initiated those costly legal actions?  None,
I gather.  It therefore seems rather disingenuous, from where I am sitting, for
anyone to bemoan these high costs if that party or parties are also associated
in any way with the genesis of any of the costly legal actions in question.


More information about the Community-Discuss mailing list