Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 166, Issue 83
BINEMO SHADIMIADI Jean Guelord
guelordshadimiadi at gmail.com
Tue Jul 21 16:30:47 UTC 2020
Owen, peut être tu a mal interprèter me propos
Le mar. 21 juil. 2020 à 18:20, <rpd-request at afrinic.net> a écrit :
> 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 166, Issue 78 (Owen DeLong)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 09:19:57 -0700
> From: Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com>
> To: Paclab <ezekielj20 at gmail.com>
> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 166, Issue 78
> Message-ID: <A29D0311-4D0D-4E13-83B7-91451DF27137 at delong.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I don?t see the correlation. This is a small debate over how exactly to
> address the issues while staying as close
> to the procedures in the CPM as possible. It?s not a big deal or anything
> sufficient to justify cancelling the online
> meeting or delaying it for an unknown period of time.
>
> Owen
>
>
> > On Jul 21, 2020, at 07:19 , Paclab <ezekielj20 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I forsaw this happening, that's why I was insisting on the cancellation
> on online meeting till the pandemic is over
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 6:59 AM <rpd-request at afrinic.net <mailto:
> rpd-request at afrinic.net>> wrote:
> > 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 <
> 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: Co-Chair Election Process (Fernando Frediani)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 09:58:31 -0300
> > From: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:
> fhfrediani at gmail.com>>
> > To: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:
> rpd at afrinic.net>>
> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Co-Chair Election Process
> > Message-ID: <2606ca05-56e7-38d3-7168-819f7db79b09 at gmail.com <mailto:
> 2606ca05-56e7-38d3-7168-819f7db79b09 at gmail.com>>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
> >
> > On 21/07/2020 02:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > > Yes, but that proposal could be to vary the chair election process
> > > just as much as to vary anything else in the document.
> >
> > Yes, as long it is conducted under a policy proposal discussion
> > following 3.6 no problem at all.
> >
> > Now the main problem I guess is to reach consensus on something as many
> > people seem too afraid of anything. So why I suggested something
> > strictly simple that resolves the current scenario, even temporarily
> > until we can have a proper proposal discussed later that resolves it
> > long term.
> >
> > However some people keep suggesting to extend the Co-Chair term without
> > willing to go through a simple show of hands in a remote event as the
> > PDP says. So how we suppose to do this? Regardless the type of job the
> > person is doing there is not other way to extend his term other than the
> > process outlined in the PDP.
> >
> > I don't see any other ways out of it.
> >
> > Fernando
> >
> > >
> > > Owen
> > >
> > >> Fernando
> > >>
> > >> On 21/07/2020 00:05, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 6:22 PM, Fernando Frediani
> > >>>> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com> <mailto:
> fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi Owen. Sorry I don't really read the 3.6 the same way as you. 3.6
> > >>>> in my view wasn't thought for situation like this. It's being glued
> > >>>> for the occasion that's not the case. 3.6 is about how the
> > >>>> proposals are conducted, reviewed and passed within this forum in a
> > >>>> exceptional situation (pretty much where we are). All points
> > >>>> mentioned there have to do with proposals. We are not discussing or
> > >>>> advancing a proposal right now.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> That?s your special interpretation. It?s not what a plain english
> > >>> reading of the language says.
> > >>>
> > >>> 1.The PDP is in the document containing 3.6. The PDP is a process.
> > >>> 2.The co-chair election process is in the document containing 3.6.
> > >>> The co-chair election process is a process.
> > >>> 3.3.6 says ?The process outlined in this document??.
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> What CAN actually be done within 3.6 is someone to properly present
> > >>>> a proposal to amend the PDP and fix the issues we are discussing
> > >>>> here and then have this proposal treated under 3.6 (with no less
> > >>>> than 4 weeks including the Last Call - which coincides with your
> > >>>> point number 3 below).
> > >>>>
> > >>> I suppose that could also work, though it?s rather indirect and adds
> > >>> (unnecessary IMHO) complexity.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In my opinion proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-007-DRAFT01 is ready for it,
> > >>>> but I guess that may not reach consensus. So a much shorter
> > >>>> proposal with just the essential we need to resolve this situation
> > >>>> is the way to go under 3.6. Would that match with what you are
> > >>>> trying to put ?
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> IMHO, AFPUB-2019-GEN-007-DRAFT01 is a fatally flawed proposal and I
> > >>> would not support it as currently written.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think a much more direct proposal to clarify an expanded scope of
> > >>> 3.6 (closer to my interpretation instead of your rather narrow
> > >>> interpretation) would be the most likely to gain consensus, frankly.
> > >>> I think such is unnecessary, but _IF_ you insist on the (oddly)
> > >>> narrow interpretation of 3.6 you have put forth, then?
> > >>>
> > >>> Owen
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Fernando
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 20/07/2020 21:52, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 10:00 AM, Fernando Frediani
> > >>>>>> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com> <mailto:
> fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 20/07/2020 13:39, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> <clip>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> This is an absurd claim. The standard (as you mention below) is
> > >>>>>>> a ?raise of hands? vote. This mechanism even in person does not
> > >>>>>>> allow people to verify that their vote was cast correctly, nor
> > >>>>>>> is it fully auditable (indeed, it has no audit trail and is not
> > >>>>>>> at all audible).
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Placing more stringent requirements than exist on the current
> > >>>>>>> system as an acceptance criteria for a system deployed urgently
> > >>>>>>> in a time of crisis makes little sense to me.
> > >>>>>> You are not making the things easier given the circumstances and
> > >>>>>> all has been been discussed here.
> > >>>>>> What is being said is analogous to raise of hand and is also a
> > >>>>>> indisputable way to eliminate most possible fraud that have been
> > >>>>>> pointed.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It is not my goal to make things easier for you or even
> > >>>>> necessarily easier in general.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It is my goal to achieve the best possible outcome through a
> > >>>>> mechanism that comes as close to applying the PDP rules as
> possible.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 4 - In order to either choose another Co-Chair or to extend the
> > >>>>>>>> current one term there must be a vote with raise of hands.
> > >>>>>>>> There is no other way out of the PDP this can be done.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> This statement ignores CPM section 3.6:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 3.6??Varying the Process
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> The process outlined in this document may vary in the case
> > >>>>>>> of an emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving
> > >>>>>>> of some provision of this document is required.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 1. The decision to vary the process is taken by a Working
> > >>>>>>> Group Chair.
> > >>>>>>> 2. There must be an explanation about why the variance is
> > >>>>>>> needed.
> > >>>>>>> 3. The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be
> > >>>>>>> less than four weeks.
> > >>>>>>> 4. If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it
> > >>>>>>> must be presented at the next Public Policy Meeting.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Clearly this is the kind of exceptional circumstance in which
> > >>>>>>> some variance could be justified.
> > >>>>>> Sorry I don't see 3.6 applying to this situation on *any* of
> > >>>>>> points mentioned. This section is about how the policies
> > >>>>>> discussion, review, last call, etc work? 1) As I understand this
> > >>>>>> decision is not up to the Chairs to take 2)Yes, we are working on
> > >>>>>> the explanation, but who will give it ? Normally is whoever take
> > >>>>>> the decision. 3) Nothing to do with elections 4) Nothing to do
> > >>>>>> with the current scenario. There is no proper policy under
> > >>>>>> discussion to be approved, only a discussion of what to do about
> > >>>>>> the next elections.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It applies to all of the CPM ("The process outlined in this
> > >>>>> document may vary??).
> > >>>>> 1. If not the co-chairs, then who?
> > >>>>> 2. I think the explanation is well understood? ?Because in person
> > >>>>> meeting during the COVID crisis is impossible.?
> > >>>>> 3. I?m not so sure about this. Whatever election process we decide
> > >>>>> on should be put to a final community comment
> > >>>>> period of some form. I see no reason that should be less than 4
> weeks.
> > >>>>> 4. So you?re saying that the determination of how to (or whether
> > >>>>> to) conduct co-chair elections should be made
> > >>>>> by some other method than community consensus and should not be
> > >>>>> considered policy at least for this meeting?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> How does that work?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I still say that a (virtual) raising of hands using the
> > >>>>>>> mechanisms available in nearly every conferencing system capable
> > >>>>>>> of supporting
> > >>>>>>> this meeting has the following advantages:
> > >>>>>>> q
> > >>>>>>> 1.Only meeting attendees may vote.
> > >>>>>>> 2.Botting your meeting attendance would be reasonably difficult,
> > >>>>>>> so it would be difficult for a person to stuff the ballot box.
> > >>>>>>> 3.It does meet the literal requirements of the existing PDP.
> > >>>>>>> 4.If we place reasonable bounds on meeting registration, we can
> > >>>>>>> avoid the so-called ?sleeper cell? effect that some have
> > >>>>>>> put forth as a concern. (Personally, I think this is less likely
> > >>>>>>> in a virtual meeting anyway).
> > >>>>>>> 5.If we place reasonable bounds on meeting registration, we also
> > >>>>>>> manage to prevent (2) from being a concern.
> > >>>>>>> 6.By ?reasonable bounds?, I mean pick a date certain in the past
> > >>>>>>> by which one must have been subscribed to RPD.
> > >>>>>>> Each email subscribed to RPD is entitled to one corresponding
> > >>>>>>> meeting registration if they choose to. No subscribed
> > >>>>>>> email, no registration for the meeting.
> > >>>>>> I quiet like this idea, and that is exactly which is under
> > >>>>>> discussion in one of the policies that should advance, but this
> > >>>>>> is not backed in any part of PDP as far as I know as the moment.
> > >>>>>> Who will determine what date is this ?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This would most certainly be a variation of the PDP to meet the
> > >>>>> emergency as it exists which would be permitted under 3.6, so, yes,
> > >>>>> my argument here depends on my argument above which you have
> > >>>>> claimed you are not buying. However, hopefully with my expansions
> on
> > >>>>> the topic above, I can perhaps convince you to change your mind
> > >>>>> and recognize that without something like that, we literally box
> > >>>>> ourselves into a situation with no way forward until such time as
> > >>>>> we can arrange an in-person meeting. Personally, I think that?s
> > >>>>> far from the best outcome.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 7.My suggestions for the date certain would be the first day of
> > >>>>>>> the originally scheduled in person AIS 2020 (May 31) or
> > >>>>>>> the originally scheduled first day of the public policy meeting
> > >>>>>>> (June 8 IIRC).
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> This would make sense if there was basis for it, but currently
> > >>>>>> there is AFAIK.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>> The basis for it is 3.6. Read the CPM carefully read 3.6. It?s not
> > >>>>> rocket science. The CPM describes all of the policies, the PDP,
> > >>>>> and the co-chair election process within the one document. Section
> > >>>>> 3.6 provides for variance of the process[sic] should be processes
> > >>>>> within
> > >>>>> the document. That includes the co-chair election process unless
> > >>>>> you can show me why it does not.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Owen
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Fernando
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> If anyone has a reason they don?t think this is viable, please
> > >>>>>>> express it. So far, I?ve seen lots of calls for other solutions,
> > >>>>>>> but this
> > >>>>>>> seems to be the approach with the fewest drawbacks and which can
> > >>>>>>> easily be implemented in time.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Owen
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Regards
> > >>>>>>>> Fernando
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 20/07/2020 03:06, Daniel Yakmut wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> Dear All,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> We arrive at the airport and I will be turning the simple
> > >>>>>>>>> matter placed on the table into a circus. The simple matter
> was:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> 1. We will have AIS 2020 online and in September.
> > >>>>>>>>> 2. A Co-chair's ?tenure has already ended. So an electronic
> > >>>>>>>>> election is being proposed as part of the AIS 2020 Agenda. The
> > >>>>>>>>> question is, is this possible?
> > >>>>>>>>> 3. It is a fact that the Co-chair is currently serving within
> > >>>>>>>>> an extended period.
> > >>>>>>>>> 4. We now agree that the introduction of e-voting is
> > >>>>>>>>> inevitable, as demonstrated by the pandemic.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> However it is clear that
> > >>>>>>>>> 1. We are going to have an online meeting , as nobody has
> > >>>>>>>>> disagreed to that.
> > >>>>>>>>> 2. There is a strong advocacy, for a process to include
> > >>>>>>>>> e-voting in the Region, but the timing is short. Therefore we
> > >>>>>>>>> need to commence the plan of creating an enabling atmosphere
> > >>>>>>>>> to integrate e-voting.
> > >>>>>>>>> 3. We need to ratify the extended period for a co-chair
> > >>>>>>>>> tentatively for 12months. Which he has spent a month or so
> > >>>>>>>>> already.
> > >>>>>>>>> 4. Ensure we have an acceptable e-voting system ready for the
> > >>>>>>>>> next date of election.
> > >>>>>>>>> 5. Let agreed clearly on this simple issue and prepare for the
> > >>>>>>>>> coming meeting.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Simply
> > >>>>>>>>> Daniel
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 2020 11:20 PM, "Fernando Frediani"
> > >>>>>>>>> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com> <mailto:
> fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I have read this message and several questions come to
> > >>>>>>>>> mind as for example:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> - What basis was used to say "it was overwhelmingly"
> > >>>>>>>>> rejected ?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> - Who actuallty represents the "current" community to
> > >>>>>>>>> state it was "totally rejected" ?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> - Whats basis was used to say that it would not work in
> > >>>>>>>>> the region if that works in several other places and RIRs
> > >>>>>>>>> including, with auditable systems ?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> - Whats basis is used to say rhe community that voted for
> > >>>>>>>>> the current Co-Chair in Kampla has the same confidence in
> > >>>>>>>>> him and that he would win ? It seems more a personal wish
> > >>>>>>>>> than anything based on fact or logic.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> - Even in order to extend the current Co-Chair term the
> > >>>>>>>>> PDP MUST be followed and there are no other ways written
> > >>>>>>>>> there other than another vote. Otherwise how can this be
> > >>>>>>>>> done ?
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Fernando
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, 18:08 Emem William,
> > >>>>>>>>> <dwizard65 at gmail.com <mailto:dwizard65 at gmail.com> <mailto:
> dwizard65 at gmail.com <mailto:dwizard65 at gmail.com>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Dear All,
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> I can? recollect that a similar proposal was proposed
> > >>>>>>>>> as a policy and it was overwhelmingly rejected in
> > >>>>>>>>> Angola. The current community totally rejected the
> > >>>>>>>>> policy no one except the authors supported the idea
> > >>>>>>>>> because we know it can't work in this region. Using
> > >>>>>>>>> online voting now would be like passing the policy
> > >>>>>>>>> using the backdoor. Am sure Jordie would like this
> > >>>>>>>>> idea and hence his enthusiasm. However my candid
> > >>>>>>>>> opinion is that we can't do this. The most appropriate
> > >>>>>>>>> way forward is to allow the Co chair who has been
> > >>>>>>>>> doing a fantastic job to continue for another 12
> > >>>>>>>>> months or till the next face to face meeting. The
> > >>>>>>>>> community that voted him in Kampala still have
> > >>>>>>>>> confidence in him. In any case even with an online
> > >>>>>>>>> election he would still likely win but I don't want
> > >>>>>>>>> polices to be passed through the back door. Therefore
> > >>>>>>>>> I think the most appropriate way for this has been
> > >>>>>>>>> suggested as an extension for the co-chair who's seat
> > >>>>>>>>> would have been contested.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Emem E. William
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>>>> RPD mailing list
> > >>>>>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> <mailto:
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>>
> > >>>>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> > >>>>>>>>> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>>>> RPD mailing list
> > >>>>>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> <mailto:
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>>
> > >>>>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> > >>>>>>>>> <https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>>>> RPD mailing list
> > >>>>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> <mailto:
> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>>
> > >>>>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> RPD mailing list
> > >>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net
> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>>
> > >>>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> RPD mailing list
> > >>>> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net
> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>>
> > >>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> RPD mailing list
> > >> RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net
> <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>>
> > >> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> > >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200721/5d88410b/attachment.html
> <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200721/5d88410b/attachment.html
> >>
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net <mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of RPD Digest, Vol 166, Issue 78
> > ************************************
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > 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/20200721/099c5892/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 166, Issue 83
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200721/939abd7f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list