As I've said before, it's most likely that a confluence of daftness explains it. Cloud Innovation is in the position of a creditor who is quite jealously guarding the claim, so under almost any system of law some sort of record or charge arises. The Companies registry should indicate that Afrinic is currently without "registered members" and that there are no directors in office. It should further indicate that the receiver is in office. It should also say who the company secretary is and it should say that there are no auditors appointed for the company. What the record really should be saying is that Afrinic is profoundly non-compliant as a company. I fear that the fact that there are no "registered members" creates a massive problem - and it would in any jurisdiction - but this problem arises because when Afrinic was established the bizarre jumping around to prevent Afrinic from being a public company limited by guarantee and to rather make it a "private company". It is also quite clearly the case that some "insiders" thought that by creating a myth that resource members aren't proper members nobody would be able to hold Afrinic accountable.

There might be an argument to allow the associate members to assume the responsibility of registered members but other than Elkins and Akplogan I really don't know who that would be and its an argument that has other problems. However there is a better and simpler stance to take which is that Afrinic ought to only have one class of member and being a resource member should carry with it all rights and that all resource members should be eligible to be "registered" by depositing 500 rupees into a reserve fund.

At the end of the day it is more likely that somebody from Afrinic's executive staff (an officer of the company) instructed the company secretary to file information with the company registry and that the company secretary made this filing than that Cloud Innovation would make a change to the company record at the registry. The trouble is that the document which has caused all this noise is not an official document. When a person considers that C&A Law (https://www.calaw.mu/our-people/) was specifically appointed in 2021 (https://afrinic.net/board/meeting/2021) "for the purpose of consolidating AFRINIC's legal team in ensuring the defence of AFRINIC" and that same firm is involved in developing corporate governance systems they should probably be asked the question.

But honestly weren't you the person who first drew attention to the unofficial record in the first place?

The problem isn't the "MU legal system" - many enterprises choose Mauritius regularly because of the legal system. There are choices made about the operation of the legal system which represent trade offs that I critique. My biggest challenge with the Mauritius legal system is that it involves and includes French and I've found that there is a certain jumping through hoops that can be frustrating. The Rule of Law Project has expressed concern as to Mauritius constraints on government power and lack of open government initiatives- for this reason Rwanda actually climbs up in their rankings- neither of which are really the first thing multinationals look at first. Moreover importantly they are reasons trying to get the Mauritian government to interfere with the courts is a problem.

If the "MU legal system" was the problem then the guys running dotAfrica wouldn't have adopted Mauritius as their domicile.

The problem is the very specific attempt at abusing the Mauritius legal system that has been built into the ethos of Afrinic. I also do think that there is a problem of Americans simply not understanding things and the fact that a lot of commentary about the Mauritius legal system is made by people who simply do not have any respect for the rule of law.

Let me be perfectly clear here the Receiver had no legitimate basis to object to any resource member (or industry representative association who can show a mandate from resource members) who wished to intervene. The legal representatives were clear that they are not parties and moved to be permitted to be heard. ICANN lacked standing to bring the application. The Receiver made no objection to ICANN being heard. There is no indication that the Receiver has ever objected to ICANN being heard even if not a party.

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 at 15:23, Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji@gmail.com wrote:

It's interesting the court classifies the addition of Cloud Innovation to the Register as erroneous, this is not just something that one gets to enter by mistake. The addition and removal of directors could not have been done without specific documented directive to the company secretary.

I wonder how the Receiver is going to justify that current nomcom composition is inline with the spirit of the bylaw.

More concerning is that counsel to the receiver had no objection when Cloud Innovation Limited (CIL) counsel sought to be in attendance and to intervene. Looks like CIL counsel and that of the Receiver are a team.

I don't even know what to say anymore about MU's legal system

Regards

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 at 07:43, Paul Hjul hjul.paul@gmail.com wrote:

...

It would help if I added the attachment...

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025, 2:40 pm Paul Hjul hjul.paul@gmail.com wrote:

...

Earlier today ICANN appeared at court. From the minutes of proceedings their application would have delayed the election. I can't fault ICANNs motivation and until I see something in an affidavit to suggest otherwise I have high confidence that the evidence of John Crain and Samantha Eisner are truthful and we're of assistance to the court. There does appear to be the old routine found when Americans encounter a British legal system a misunderstanding of the independent legal profession crops up and somebody commenting on The Register remarked with sufficient snark about ICANN and conflicts of interest. I doubt it will ever be admitted but it's quite clear that the narrative around the erroneous record leading to an unofficial document saying something absurd has been spun about sideways.

Technically the ordered aspects of this are not actually by virtue of ICANNs application but rather flow from the jurisdiction of the court over the receivership and holding of the elections.

If this development is anything to go by though by Monday we might just learn something altogether more interesting about efforts to derail the election by people who really just don't want Afrinic to follow it's own bylaws and the law of Mauritius.

---

Members-Discuss mailing list Members-Discuss@afrinic.net https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss

--

*Seun Ojedeji,*

Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!