Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 122, Issue 76
ALI Hadji Mmadi
alihadji90 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 22 10:24:16 UTC 2016
Hi Andrew,
Do we have evidence whatsoever that resources are not being misused?
Only the audit could clarify all questions do we (you and me) are asking
now.
If we refuse this audit, how we will be sure about its using?
Regards.
ALI Hadji
2016-11-22 13:10 GMT+03:00 <rpd-request at afrinic.net>:
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
> rpd at afrinic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rpd-request at afrinic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rpd-owner at afrinic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: RPD Digest, Vol 122, Issue 70 (Andrew Alston)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 10:09:28 +0000
> From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>
> To: ALI Hadji Mmadi <alihadji90 at gmail.com>, "rpd at afrinic.net"
> <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 122, Issue 70
> Message-ID:
> <AMSPR03MB5342BADACDA13F4F1B3711FEEB40 at AMSPR03MB534.
> eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Ali,
>
> That?s half the point ? no one is quite sure what the principle idea
> behind this policy is ? despite many many questions and no responses.
>
> There is no evidence whatsoever that resources are being misused. We are
> asked to approve a policy that allows one company to demand afrinic audit
> another company, with absolutely no basis for defining a rule like that
> other than hypothetical fearmongering. We are asked to accept a policy
> that has NO safe guards and allows one operator to harass another operator
> at any point by requesting an audit on them, with no specifics as to what
> evidence they have to provide for requesting the audit. We are asked to
> accept a policy where the person being audited ? who has to put time and
> effort and hence OPEX cost into complying with the audit has no right to
> know who requested the audit against them or the grounds for the audit ?
> and hence has no recourse.
>
> The authors have point blank refused to address these concerns despite
> them being raised time and again. Hence ? at that point, I start to
> question the ACTUAL motivations behind this policy ? because it sure as
> hell isn?t based on any objective evidence provided that would cause me to
> support this policy.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> From: ALI Hadji Mmadi [mailto:alihadji90 at gmail.com]
> Sent: 22 November 2016 13:02
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 122, Issue 70
>
> Hi Andrew
> when you say:
> >>we act against every member who is not announcing space because they
> cannot justify not announcing it..
> I'm not sure that is the principal idea of this Policy. If it is accepted
> in the community, It will be use to all.
> When you say:
> >>Are the authors of this policy and those supporting it prepared to bear
> the cost of the fee increases that would be necessary to back fill the loss
> in revenue that would effectively bankrupt AfriNIC?
>
> I'm not elso sure that is good thought that every authors will have to
> support the costs associated with his policy. If not, we (community) will
> never try to rectify some rules which no longer adapt to the actual reality
> while they were before; Or we will never try to maintain some rules that
> are still be good for the community.
>
> Regards.
> ALI Hadji
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2016-11-22 11:58 GMT+03:00 <rpd-request at afrinic.net<mailto:
> rpd-request at afrinic.net>>:
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
> rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> rpd-request at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> rpd-owner at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-owner at afrinic.net>
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy
> proposal (Badru Ntege)
> 2. Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy
> proposal (Andrew Alston)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:09:22 +0300
> From: Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at nftconsult.com<mailto:
> badru.ntege at nftconsult.com>>
> To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@
> liquidtelecom.com>>, Dewole Ajao
> <dewole at forum.org.ng<mailto:dewole at forum.org.ng>>, sergekbk <
> sergekbk at gmail.com<mailto:sergekbk at gmail.com>>, Arnaud AMELINA
> <amelnaud at gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>>, "rpd >> AfriNIC
> Resource Policy"
> <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review
> policy proposal
> Message-ID: <A6414A3C-4424-4FE5-B89F-DB9BD83FEE17 at nftconsult.com<mailto:
> A6414A3C-4424-4FE5-B89F-DB9BD83FEE17 at nftconsult.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
>
> On 11/16/16, 1:43 PM, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>> wrote:
>
> So,
>
>
>
> I have a hypothetical question ? and it will become a lot less
> hypothetical once I?ve run the numbers which I?m currently doing.
>
>
>
> Let?s say we implement this audit policy ? and then ? because we have to
> act consistently ? we act against every member who is not announcing space
> because they cannot justify not announcing it ? and we terminate their
> membership.
>
>
>
> Are the authors of this policy and those supporting it prepared to bear
> the cost of the fee increases that would be necessary to back fill the loss
> in revenue that would effectively bankrupt AfriNIC? Running through the
> preliminary statistics ? firstly the auditing process would be immensely
> expensive in HR cost ? secondly ? termination of members that aren?t
> ?legitimately? announcing space by rough calculations could cost AfriNIC in
> excess of 15% of its revenue by the latest numbers available in the
> financial reports and correlating the unannounced space that is allocated
> with the billing file.
>
>
> I hardly believe that a drop in 15% of revenue would bankrupt AfriNIC ??.
> If that?s the case then our problems are bigger than an Audit. Which I
> definitely doubt.
>
> Lets not add scary variables to support opposition to a policy.
>
>
>
>
> Now, some would argue that is all the more reason to implement the audit
> policy ? but here is a wake up call ? the space you would recover in that
> call on those calculations ? amounts to less than 10% of space that AfriNIC
> has allocated legitimately since May ? so effectively, for the gain of
> looking tough and being rigid, we may end up bankrupting the organisation
> while recovering potentially a /15 worth of space. Alternatively, from any
> logical business perspective ? that money would have to be recovered from
> the members who are legitimately announcing space ? because it certainly
> can?t just disappear.
>
>
>
> So, has anyone ACTUALLY thought through the implications of this policy?
> I remain firmly opposed.
>
>
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:dewole at forum.org.ng<mailto:dewole at forum.org.ng>]
> Sent: 16 November 2016 12:52
> To: sergekbk <sergekbk at gmail.com<mailto:sergekbk at gmail.com>>; Arnaud
> AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>>; rpd >> AfriNIC
> Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>; General
> Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:
> community-discuss at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal
>
>
>
> I think all policies (if we really intend to implement them) must be clear
> and leave no room for variable interpretation as ambiguity will put
> additional burdens of interpretation on staff.
>
> If the community's preference is for the 24-month window to become invalid
> on allocation/assignment of new resources, then the policy (proposal)
> should state it clearly; If on the other hand, the intention is for the
> 24-month window to stay in place come-what-may, it's better for the policy
> (proposal) to be explicit about it.
>
> Please see below, additional questions for the community to consider.
> Hopefully, they can be discussed and the authors can (if they so choose,)
> take the inputs from the community into their modified proposal.
>
> 3.3.2 Selected:
>
>
> A member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of
> contact between the AFRINIC and the member.
>
> Q1. Do we presently have an existing (effective) structure (apart from
> billing) that measures degree of contact with members?
> If there is no agreed means of measuring the degree contact, we need to
> define degrees of contact so that "lack of contact" (as referred to in the
> proposal) can be measured objectively.
>
> Perhaps as a first step for ensuring regular contact without using up too
> many resources, this proposal might want to borrow a leaf from RIPE's
> Assisted Registry Check (ARC). See https://www.ripe.net/manage-
> ips-and-asns/resource-management/assisted-registry-check
>
> Basically, the RIR does a consistency check on members' Registry,
> Resource, and Route/rDNS information and then sends emails to the contacts
> on file showing their view. They then schedule a telephone call to work
> with the member and fix any identified issues.
>
> My understanding from RIPE is that these non-invasive checks sometimes
> reveal issues that may warrant more detailed investigation. The primary
> model is by random checks but done in a manner that checks every member at
> least once in 3 years (given the size of RIPE). They also have ARCs that
> are initiated as a result of information received from the member or third
> parties.
>
> Q2. Can reachability/cooperation of a member for such a consistency
> check-and-fix activity as described above be used to measure the degree of
> contact?
>
> Q3. Given the fact that time taken for consistency checks are more
> predictable, can these be implemented as a preliminary step in addressing
> the "lack of investigation" problem as well as the concern about taking up
> much of members' and/or AFRINIC hostmasters' time?
>
> Regards,
> Dewole.
> (with apologies for continuing the cross-posting between RPD and
> Community-discuss)
>
> On 15/11/2016 20:18, sergekbk wrote:
>
> Hello Dewole,
>
>
> Thanks for this comment.
> The limit of 24 months applies to a member based on ressources
> portfolio. If the portfolio changes with new allocation, member can be
> audited anytime on the new ressources if required.
>
> Is this clear enough or shall we make it explicit ?
>
> Kind Regards.
>
>
>
> Serge Ilunga
>
> Cell: +243814443160<tel:%2B243814443160>
>
> Skype: sergekbk
>
> R.D.Congo
>
> -------- Original message --------
>
> From: Dewole Ajao <dewole at tinitop.com<mailto:dewole at tinitop.com>>
>
> Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00)
>
> To: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>>, "rpd
> >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>,
> General Discussions of AFRINIC <community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:
> community-discuss at afrinic.net>>
>
> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal
>
>
>
> Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal, Arnaud.
>
> To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of events:
>
> Member XYZ initiates self-requested review;
> Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks;
> After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources;
> Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days;
> Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or new)
> number resources and it somehow becomes known to the community;
> Regardless of convincing evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to a
> review until 24 months have elapsed since the last review.
>
> Is this a design feature or a bug?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dewole.
>
>
>
> On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
>
> Hi community !
> Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal from
> Owen and others contributors, authors propose this as replacement to the
> section 3.3.3
>
> -'---old version---''
>
> 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
>
> a. They have requested the review themselves or
> b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants
> investigation.
>
> ----new version-----
>
> 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
>
> a..They have requested the review themselves or
> b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants
> investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC staff
> shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this
> review is not applicable to a member on which a full review has been
> completed in the preceding 24 months.
>
> Regards.
>
> Arnaud.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Community-Discuss mailing list
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> https://lists.afrinic.net/
> mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/
> 20161117/b0e0d4de/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 08:57:39 +0000
> From: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@
> liquidtelecom.com>>
> To: Badru Ntege <badru.ntege at nftconsult.com<mailto:badru.ntege at nftconsult.
> com>>, Dewole Ajao
> <dewole at forum.org.ng<mailto:dewole at forum.org.ng>>, sergekbk <
> sergekbk at gmail.com<mailto:sergekbk at gmail.com>>, Arnaud AMELINA
> <amelnaud at gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>>, "rpd >> AfriNIC
> Resource Policy"
> <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review
> policy proposal
> Message-ID:
> <AMSPR03MB53453FA73AAEEA3268239CCEEB40 at AMSPR03MB534.
> eurprd03.prod.outlook.com<mailto:AMSPR03MB53453FA73AAEEA
> 3268239CCEEB40 at AMSPR03MB534.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Actually ? do the maths ? that is pretty much the situation.
>
> Please go and look at the profitability of the company over the last few
> years based vis-a-vie the revenue numbers.
>
> Our income in the 2015 financial year was 4.084 million dollars.
> Our Surplus for the year was $402,245
>
> If you remove 15% of the revenue, you remove $612,000 from the income.
>
> That would leave us at a net loss of in excess of $200k USD.
>
> And that is calculated against the year where we had our best income
> surplus in the last 5 or 6 years.
>
> Seriously ? before you doubt things ? go and do your homework ? the
> numbers are in black and white on the financial statements that have been
> given to this community at every AGMM.
>
> Andrew
>
>
>
> From: Badru Ntege [mailto:badru.ntege at nftconsult.com<mailto:badru.
> ntege at nftconsult.com>]
> Sent: 17 November 2016 08:09
> To: Andrew Alston <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston@
> liquidtelecom.com>>; Dewole Ajao <dewole at forum.org.ng<mailto:de
> wole at forum.org.ng>>; sergekbk <sergekbk at gmail.com<mailto:ser
> gekbk at gmail.com>>; Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com<mailto:ame
> lnaud at gmail.com>>; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:
> rpd at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy
> proposal
>
>
>
>
> On 11/16/16, 1:43 PM, "Andrew Alston" <Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com
> <mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com><mailto:Andr
> ew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com<mailto:Andrew.Alston at liquidtelecom.com>>>
> wrote:
>
> So,
>
> I have a hypothetical question ? and it will become a lot less
> hypothetical once I?ve run the numbers which I?m currently doing.
>
> Let?s say we implement this audit policy ? and then ? because we have to
> act consistently ? we act against every member who is not announcing space
> because they cannot justify not announcing it ? and we terminate their
> membership.
>
> Are the authors of this policy and those supporting it prepared to bear
> the cost of the fee increases that would be necessary to back fill the loss
> in revenue that would effectively bankrupt AfriNIC? Running through the
> preliminary statistics ? firstly the auditing process would be immensely
> expensive in HR cost ? secondly ? termination of members that aren?t
> ?legitimately? announcing space by rough calculations could cost AfriNIC in
> excess of 15% of its revenue by the latest numbers available in the
> financial reports and correlating the unannounced space that is allocated
> with the billing file.
>
> I hardly believe that a drop in 15% of revenue would bankrupt AfriNIC ??.
> If that?s the case then our problems are bigger than an Audit. Which I
> definitely doubt.
>
> Lets not add scary variables to support opposition to a policy.
>
>
>
> Now, some would argue that is all the more reason to implement the audit
> policy ? but here is a wake up call ? the space you would recover in that
> call on those calculations ? amounts to less than 10% of space that AfriNIC
> has allocated legitimately since May ? so effectively, for the gain of
> looking tough and being rigid, we may end up bankrupting the organisation
> while recovering potentially a /15 worth of space. Alternatively, from any
> logical business perspective ? that money would have to be recovered from
> the members who are legitimately announcing space ? because it certainly
> can?t just disappear.
>
> So, has anyone ACTUALLY thought through the implications of this policy?
> I remain firmly opposed.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> From: Dewole Ajao [mailto:dewole at forum.org.ng<mailto:dewole at forum.org.ng>]
> Sent: 16 November 2016 12:52
> To: sergekbk <sergekbk at gmail.com<mailto:sergekbk at gmail.com><mailto:sergek
> bk at gmail.com<mailto:sergekbk at gmail.com>>>; Arnaud AMELINA <
> amelnaud at gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com><mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com
> <mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>>>; rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <
> rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net><mailto:rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd@
> afrinic.net>>>; General Discussions of AFRINIC <
> community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net
> ><mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:com
> munity-discuss at afrinic.net>>>
> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal
>
>
> I think all policies (if we really intend to implement them) must be clear
> and leave no room for variable interpretation as ambiguity will put
> additional burdens of interpretation on staff.
>
> If the community's preference is for the 24-month window to become invalid
> on allocation/assignment of new resources, then the policy (proposal)
> should state it clearly; If on the other hand, the intention is for the
> 24-month window to stay in place come-what-may, it's better for the policy
> (proposal) to be explicit about it.
>
> Please see below, additional questions for the community to consider.
> Hopefully, they can be discussed and the authors can (if they so choose,)
> take the inputs from the community into their modified proposal.
>
> 3.3.2 Selected:
>
> A member is selected because of an internal report or due to a lack of
> contact between the AFRINIC and the member.
>
> Q1. Do we presently have an existing (effective) structure (apart from
> billing) that measures degree of contact with members?
> If there is no agreed means of measuring the degree contact, we need to
> define degrees of contact so that "lack of contact" (as referred to in the
> proposal) can be measured objectively.
>
> Perhaps as a first step for ensuring regular contact without using up too
> many resources, this proposal might want to borrow a leaf from RIPE's
> Assisted Registry Check (ARC). See https://www.ripe.net/manage-
> ips-and-asns/resource-management/assisted-registry-check
>
> Basically, the RIR does a consistency check on members' Registry,
> Resource, and Route/rDNS information and then sends emails to the contacts
> on file showing their view. They then schedule a telephone call to work
> with the member and fix any identified issues.
>
> My understanding from RIPE is that these non-invasive checks sometimes
> reveal issues that may warrant more detailed investigation. The primary
> model is by random checks but done in a manner that checks every member at
> least once in 3 years (given the size of RIPE). They also have ARCs that
> are initiated as a result of information received from the member or third
> parties.
> Q2. Can reachability/cooperation of a member for such a consistency
> check-and-fix activity as described above be used to measure the degree of
> contact?
>
> Q3. Given the fact that time taken for consistency checks are more
> predictable, can these be implemented as a preliminary step in addressing
> the "lack of investigation" problem as well as the concern about taking up
> much of members' and/or AFRINIC hostmasters' time?
>
> Regards,
> Dewole.
> (with apologies for continuing the cross-posting between RPD and
> Community-discuss)
> On 15/11/2016 20:18, sergekbk wrote:
> Hello Dewole,
>
> Thanks for this comment.
> The limit of 24 months applies to a member based on ressources
> portfolio. If the portfolio changes with new allocation, member can be
> audited anytime on the new ressources if required.
> Is this clear enough or shall we make it explicit ?
>
> Kind Regards.
>
> Serge Ilunga
> Cell: +243814443160<tel:%2B243814443160>
> Skype: sergekbk
> R.D.Congo
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Dewole Ajao <dewole at tinitop.com<mailto:dewole at tinitop.com>><mailto:
> dewole at tinitop.com<mailto:dewole at tinitop.com>>
> Date: 11/15/2016 11:38 (GMT+01:00)
> To: Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>><mailto:
> amelnaud at gmail.com<mailto:amelnaud at gmail.com>>, "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource
> Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>><mailto:rpd at afrinic.net
> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>, General Discussions of AFRINIC <
> community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net
> >><mailto:community-discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:co
> mmunity-discuss at afrinic.net>>
> Subject: Re: [Community-Discuss] Update to Resources review policy proposal
>
>
> Thanks for working to apply the community's input to your proposal, Arnaud.
>
> To test the proposed re-wording, consider the following sequence of events:
>
> Member XYZ initiates self-requested review;
> Review is completed by AFRINIC in X weeks;
> After review, Member XYZ applies for "large chunk" of number resources;
> Member XYZ receives "large chunk" of number resources in say 60 days;
> Member XYZ happens to make some unacceptable use of (previous or new)
> number resources and it somehow becomes known to the community;
> Regardless of convincing evidence, Member XYZ cannot be subjected to a
> review until 24 months have elapsed since the last review.
>
> Is this a design feature or a bug?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dewole.
>
>
> On 15/11/2016 10:48, Arnaud AMELINA wrote:
>
> Hi community !
> Following, recent discussions and in accordance with text proposal from
> Owen and others contributors, authors propose this as replacement to the
> section 3.3.3
>
> -'---old version---''
>
> 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
>
> a. They have requested the review themselves or
> b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants
> investigation.
>
> ----new version-----
>
> 3.3.3 Reported: Here, members are reviewed either because:
>
> a..They have requested the review themselves or
> b. There has been a community complaint made against them that warrants
> investigation. Complaints shall be backed by evidence and AFRINIC staff
> shall evaluate the facts as appropriate to conduct the review. However this
> review is not applicable to a member on which a full review has been
> completed in the preceding 24 months.
>
> Regards.
>
> Arnaud.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Community-Discuss mailing list
>
> Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net
> ><mailto:Community-Discuss at afrinic.net<mailto:Com
> munity-Discuss at afrinic.net>>
>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/community-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net><mailto:RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD@
> afrinic.net>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/
> 20161122/c526af1d/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 122, Issue 70
> ************************************
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/
> 20161122/947a2af6/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 122, Issue 76
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20161122/086ece5a/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list