<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">My issue here is – I am not convinced that you can use arbitration to step around the law.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When the companies act has rules – you cannot use arbitration to violate the companies act.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When the bylaws create rules – and the company violates those rules – arbitration to allow them to violate the rules – also doesn’t make sense – because it creates a situation where they can violate the rules for one company based on arbitration
outcomes and then leave themselves to sitting in arbitration for everyone else.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Arbitration works when it’s a dispute involving something specific to an entity – it does not work when one of the entities is violating the companies act or the bylaws that affect all members.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As for the question that was asked about if AfriNIC has ever initiated proceedings – no – not that I know of – but – what they have done is created the situations where members have felt no option but to take legal action. Members have
a duty to protect themselves – and when AfriNIC’s actions represent a threat to the interests of those members, and potentially in conflict with the law or the bylaws – and AfriNIC point blank refuses to budge – then they create an adversarial and litigious
environment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">A classic example of this is the AGMM tomorrow – There are formal objections to the AGMM – the companies act says one thing, the bylaws say something, and AfriNIC has a very simple option. Postpone the meeting, issue a rectified notice
of meeting, and issue the resolutions in that notice of meeting that are required to be there. The meeting could then be held as an online only meeting in 4 to 6 weeks – and there would be no objections anymore – and all it would require is a slight delay
that would not in reality hurt anything. Instead – AfriNIC seems hell bent on pushing through and performing some truly amazing legal gymnastics to make text say things it doesn’t – and thereby escalating an already tense situation rather than choosing to
act in the best interests of the company and the members, avoid potential litigation and just accept the delay. Why are they choosing this route? No one really knows – because it certainly would not actually affect anything in a material sense if they were
to rectify the issues at hand – but it seems that egos are winning out.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I also point out that it was AfriNIC’s legal council – who on video – in front of an AGMM in Uganda – said to the members “If you don’t like it – you have an option, the courts” – effectively he said “Don’t like it – sue us” – well – members
are now obliging – what did they expect?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Andrew<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Paul Hjul <hjul.paul@gmail.com> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, June 2, 2022 1:07 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> community-discuss@afrinic.net<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [Community-Discuss] Binding Arbitration<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<pre><span style="color:black">"Has anyone considered binding arbitration as a means to resolve these various<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black">controversies? It seems to me that that might be a more cost efficient,<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black">and almost certainly a more time-efficient manner of resolving a number of<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black">outstanding disputes that various parties have with AFRINIC at present.<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black">Andrew is right, of course, to lament the high costs of traditional legal actions.<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre><span style="color:black">But in which instances has AFRINIC initiated those costly legal actions?"<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap"><span style="color:black"><o:p> </o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap"><span style="color:black">Um I've argued for Afrinic to commit to arbitration since the inception of the issues. Not sure when you joined team ADR.<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap"><span style="color:black">Complaining that you are being sued after you committed a tort is a bit rich. You are sounding like the whining American executives who are unhappy that Ford was slapped with an injunction in Germany after they refused to enter into FRAND licensing negotiations knowing full well that refusing to do so represents intending to infringe on patents.<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap"><span style="color:black">The party who acts wrongfully and who fails to remedy is responsible for the litigation that follows.<o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap"><span style="color:black">Afrinic's board knowingly, maliciously and for an alterior motive moved to cancel a members membership. They did so without following any of the rules of natural justice. <o:p></o:p></span></pre>
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap"><span style="color:black">That is the inescapable and dispositive fact of this fiasco. The existence in the RSA of a dispute resolution clause is the best way to guard the organization moving forward and its absence means that even if the board were to grow up and stop delinquency they wouldn't be able to ensure that every dispute is now in arbitration. But that is hardly a reason not to do things correctly moving forward. Of course much of the litigation would become moot if the board would simply acknowledge the patently unlawful conduct it engaged in. <o:p></o:p></span></pre>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>