Summary
- AFRINIC’s commercial dispute expanded through repeated legal and governance decisions; responsibility cannot be inferred from which party first appeared in court.
- A public timeline should pair every filing with the representative’s authority, approving body, invoice and operational consequence.
The disclosed legal engagement letter changes the useful question. It documents a broad mandate covering numerous proceedings and a US$1,000 hourly rate, creating a financial incentive that grew with litigation. That does not by itself prove that any filing was unnecessary or corrupt. It does show why the institutional record must follow decisions and payments, not a simple narrative about one litigant.
AFRINIC’s board paralysis, disputed representation and court supervision made authority unusually difficult to trace. When a filing was made, members needed to know whether the representative had current legal standing, which organ approved the step and whether a cheaper path had been considered. Without those links, even a valid defence could become an uncontrolled drain on a member-funded registry.
The repair is a case-by-case chronology: order, decision-maker, stated objective, outside counsel, invoice, result and effect on registry continuity. Such a ledger would not predetermine blame. It would allow members and courts to distinguish necessary defence from litigation that mainly prolonged the crisis.
