<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""></off-topic><br class="">.. i would say that the order that i read here [1] says: “do not act on the board’s resolution until you appear in court on $date”. what i also see is that (as the transcript shows) this order-to-not-act arrived on july13, when action was made on july8. specifically, i don’t see the the words (quoting you) “immediate” nor do i see “correct” nor do i see “restore” in the text of the order. just a “cease and desist”; which, i believe is what afrinic did do (ie. stopped changing WHOIS entries at that point) until such time as a court appearance was made.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>So your claim is that since the actions were taken prior to the injunction, the injunction did not create an obligation to reverse those actions?</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Your claim is that the following text:</div></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class=""><div><div>…restraining and prohibiting You, the above named, Respondent acting through tis Board and/or its representatives and/or prepose in whatever capacity, from</div><div><br class=""></div><div>…</div><div>(ii)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>freezing in any manner whatsoever, any or all of the resources allocated to the Applicant;</div><div>(iii)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>denying the Applicant access in any manner whatsoever to the AFRINIC WHOIS database;</div><div>(iv)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>reclaiming, in any manner whatsoever, or any or all of the resources allocated to the Applicant by virtue of its membership as a Resource Member of the Respondent</div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;" class="">…</blockquote><div class=""><br class=""></div>Does not create an obligation to reverse the actions previously taken based on the board resolution, simply because said order was issued after the actions were taken.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">An interesting interpretation, indeed.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">i am guessing that during the “exchange of views” these words were possibly mentioned; likely others too, like “reinstate”, which would have been another important word, imho, that should have been in the original order. what’s clear to me, reading the transcript of court on page 4, are the words : “will fully comply with the Order”, and as we know the WHOIS entries were corrected, so can we *please* stop this bleating about how afrinic didn’t listen to the court order. because, that’s not how we all view this, and, it’s clear (at least to me) that the court saw reasonable doubt in their original order as well, else they would/should have immediately held afrinic in contempt of court for not listening to the july13 order. they did not.<br class=""></topic><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>The transcript you refer to is from the hearing on the 15th. The message you are quoting referred to AFRINIC’s failure (and refusal) to comply between the issuance of the interim order issued on July 13th until forced to do so at the hearing on July 15th.</div><div><br class=""></div></div><div>During that time, AFRINIC did refuse to make updates to WHOIS (thus violating (ii) and (iii) from the order.</div><div>During that time, AFRINIC did refuse to issue new ROAs that had been requested prior to the board resolution, thus violating (i) of the order.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>By keeping the notice on WHOIS during that time, I would argue that AFRINIC also violated (iv) of the order in that a notice that the resources have been reclaimed is, in fact, a form of reclamation and refusing to remove such notice of reclamation constitutes a continuing act of reclamation in at least some manner.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Sure, there’s probably room for clever attorneys to engage in some level of sophistry around this, but I think that the outcome of the January 15th hearing made it pretty clear that the judges intent was for AFRINIC to do on the 13th what it finally did on the 15th.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div></body></html>