Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed during the online Policy meetin

Anthony Ubah ubah.tonyiyke at gmail.com
Fri Sep 25 22:17:13 UTC 2020


Hello Fenando,


Are we throwing out the bathing water together with the baby? Does Legacy
status impact on today's immediate problem?
Suggestion please.

Like I said, the Legacy status of resources if not concluded here can be
discussed in a separate proposal. Opinions will always be divided on
certain issues.



Kind regards,

Anthony Ubah


On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 10:20 PM <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:


> 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: Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed

> during the online Policy meetin (Fernando Frediani)

>

>

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Message: 1

> Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:19:55 -0300

> From: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>

> To: rpd at afrinic.net

> Subject: Re: [rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed

> during the online Policy meetin

> Message-ID: <388bba0e-3230-f34a-5273-49595ef4a0fe at gmail.com>

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

>

> On 25/09/2020 18:07, Anthony Ubah wrote:

> > <clip>

> >

> >

> > With respect to my policy proposal on Number resource Transfer, a

> > questions was asked about legacy resources. This is relatively trivial

> > to the idea of the policy in general. This can be subject to a new

> > Legacy policy in its own right. However this proposal was done with

> > the grand intention of gaining reciprocity with the key donor of IPv4s

> > which is ARIN. The issues raised shouldn't halt this policy. Jordi

> > made some valid recommendations which can be considered.

>

> It is definitively not. Letting them remain considered legacy is a

> *major issue* that only benefit a few actors who gain financially with

> it, plus incentives the continuation of a historic internet issue that

> must end and bring all resources under common rules that any other

> organization is bounded to on the top of helping ending possible abuses

> from those who are still not subject to the rules of any RIR.

>

> On the top of that this has never been mentioned in *any* message for

> months of discussion and has never been raised as an issue. Suddenly

> someone goes to the PPM, mentions that, it becomes a mandatory change in

> order for the proposal to reach rough consensus and the rest of the

> people who discussed it in details have no chance oppose and properly

> put up their points ? It doesn't make sense !

> If the logic is that then people that have financial means to attend a

> future event may be in advantage of others that participate only in the

> RPD list if willing to change something substantial in the proposal at

> the very last minute.

>

> FYI the Inter-RIR transfer policy in LACNIC states any legacy resources

> transferred loses its status and it is still reciprocal to any other RIR

> that have an Inter-RIR policy.

>

> Fernando

>

> >

> > Lastly a comments was made about our problem statement. I think it is

> > clearly stated. The use of the term "Business" has raised a few

> > eyebrows and instigated ominous thoughts. I urge everyone to read

> > again with an open mind. Internet is a global enterprise, and Number

> > resources, internet, IT infrastructure and business are an integral

> > part of our world today. It is impractical to separate the use of

> > number resources from business.

> >

> >

> > These are my 10Cents.

> >

> >

> > Kind regards,

> >

> > Anthony Ubah

> >

> >

> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 5:03 PM <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: Decisions and summary on policy proposals discussed

> > ? ? ? during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32) (Blaise Fyama)

> >

> >

> >

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> > Message: 1

> > Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:02:20 +0200

> > From: Blaise Fyama <bfyama at gmail.com <mailto:bfyama at gmail.com>>

> > To: ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng

> > <mailto:oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>>

> > Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>

> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals

> discussed

> > ? ? ? ? during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32)

> > Message-ID:

> > ? ? ? ?

> > <CAPehF5dv=5yc_bHR6OEJwtr7V28qNhTk-tK-sf1C_eAxWGLmVQ at mail.gmail.com

> > <mailto:5yc_bHR6OEJwtr7V28qNhTk-tK-sf1C_eAxWGLmVQ at mail.gmail.com>>

> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

> >

> > Chers co-chairs,

> > Sans ?tre virulents ? votre ?gard j'ai juste deux remarques ?

> > faire d'abord:

> >

> > 1. L'aspect multilinguiste devrait ?tre respect? dans la prise en

> > compte de

> > vos d?cisions, et je n'en ai pas le sentiment, ce qui implique que

> > pour

> > accompagner solidement vos conclusions et vos inf?rences, un tableau

> > transparent regroupant sommairement les r?actions de chaque membre

> > politique apr?s politique serait le bienvenu car il permettrait ?

> > tout le

> > monde d'avoir une vue claire et optimale de vos d?cisions.

> > ?tant un acad?mique de carri?re, je constate que sur 10 politiques

> > seulement 2 sont adopt?es ou en voie de l'?tre ce qui laisse

> > sous-entendre

> > que les 8 autres politiques, qui pourtant r?sultent de grands

> efforts,

> > donnent un sentiment d'?chec ? leurs auteurs. Pourriez-vous

> > ?couter un peu

> > plus leurs auteurs?

> > Je reconnais par exemple que Jordi a longuement interagis et

> > ?chang? avec

> > plusieurs d'entre nous sa proposition m?riterait d'?voluer.

> >

> > 2. Lorsqu'une remarque techniquement et valablement soutenue vous est

> > adress?e pourriez-vous aussi donner des explications

> > proportionnellement longues? Vos r?ponses courtes et laconiques

> > laissent un

> > sentiment de manque de consid?ration de ce qui vous est adress?

> > par les

> > membres. Sinon vous risquez d'inspirer ? leur tour les membres du

> > PDWG que

> > nous sommes ? concevoir des politiques qui limitent votre propre

> r?le.

> >

> > La note positive dans tout ?a est que les 2 politiques ? savoir

> > les "Les

> > pr?rogatives du conseil" et "Politique de transfert des

> > ressources" au vu

> > des longues discussions pendant des mois ont quand m?me fait du

> > chemin. Je

> > note seulement que nous devons rester alerte pour? "Les

> > pr?rogatives du

> > conseil"? afin de ne pas affaiblir non plus le conseil qui devrait

> > demeurer

> > un organe de prise des d?cisions, pour plus d'efficience et

> > d'efficacit?

> > dans le fonctionnement de la communaut?.

> > J'en f?licite les auteurs, surtout Taiwo avec qui j'ai eu

> > l'opportunit?

> > d'?changer lors de l'avant-dernier sommet en Angola.

> >

> > Pour finir chers co-chairs efforcez-vous d'?tre multilingues pour

> nous

> > ?crire en Fran?ais comme nous aussi on vous ?crit parfois en Anglais.

> >

> > Cordialement,

> > Blaise.

> >

> >

> >

> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Blaise FYAMA

> > Msc, PhD.

> > Professeur Associ?

> > Secr?taire G?n?ral Acad?mique Honoraire/UL

> > Doyen de la Facult? des Sciences Informatiques/UPL

> > Doyen a.i de la Facult? Polytechnique/UPL

> > Chef de D?partement G?nie Electrique/ESI-UNILU

> > Chef de Service Informatique/Polytech-UNILU

> > Consultant Informatique BIT/PAEJK

> > Membre de International Research Conference IRC/WASET

> > Tel: +243995579515

> > Num?ro O.N.I.CIV: 00460

> >

> > MSc, PhD.

> >

> > Associate Professor

> >

> > Honorary Academic Secretary General / UL

> >

> > Dean of the Faculty of Computer Science / UPL

> >

> > Dean a.i of the Polytechnic Faculty / UPL

> >

> > Head of Department of Electrical Engineering / ESI-UNILU

> >

> > IT Service Manager / Polytech-UNILU

> >

> > IT Consultant BIT / PAEJK

> >

> > Member of International Research Conference IRC/WASET

> >

> > Phone: +243995579515

> >

> > O.N.I.CIV number: 00460

> >

> >

> > Le lun. 21 sept. 2020 ? 02:06, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <

> > oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng <mailto:oloyede.aa at unilorin.edu.ng>> a

> > ?crit :

> >

> > >

> > > Dear PDWG Members,

> > >

> > >? Please find below a summary for each of the proposal discussed

> > during the

> > > just concluded online policy meeting of AFRINIC 32

> > >

> > > 1.? ? ? ?Simple PDP Update

> > >

> > > This policy defines consensus. It also proposes that a policy

> > discussed at

> > > the PPM does not need to come back for another PPM for the

> > Co-chairs to

> > > arrive at a decision. This can help in streamlining the work

> > during the PPM

> > > and encourages people to use the mailing list.

> > >

> > > There were lots of irrelevant objections on the mailing list such

> as

> > > someone registering many emails. We believe that this does not

> > matter

> > > because rough consensus is not about numbers but quality

> objections.

> > >

> > > However, there is strong opposition to this policy based on the

> > following:

> > >

> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Oppose the policy because of the way the

> > consensus

> > > is reached. This proposal proposes that the consensus be reached

> > through a

> > > balance of the mailing list/forum and not at the PPM. This

> > endangers fair

> > > consensus and hijacks the policymaking process. Based on

> > experience, it is

> > > during the PPM that most community members focus on policies.

> > >

> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Issues around how the chairs should drop

> > proposals.

> > >

> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Trust in the mailing list: Some strongly

> > believe

> > > that anonymous contribution should be allowed while some

> > believes it should

> > > not.

> > >

> > > d.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Issues around having more than 1 PPM per

> > year and

> > > Online PPM because of volunteer burnout. We are all volunteers

> > and it?s a

> > > night job for us. More PPMs mean more time to volunteer and more

> > chances

> > > for burnouts

> > >

> > > e.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Some members of the Community thinks only

> > burning or

> > > polarizing issues should be brought to the PPM.

> > >

> > > Chairs Decision:? ?No Consensus

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 2.? ? ? ?PDP Working Group

> > >

> > > This proposal aims at allowing most of the decisions including

> chair

> > > elections to be determined via consensus.? This can be

> > reasonable when the

> > > community has the same goal. However, there were a number of

> > objections to

> > > it. These are:

> > >

> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Entrusting the WG to make their decisions by

> > > consensus and the appointment of their co-chairs by consensus do

> > not make

> > > sense and is only utopic.

> > >

> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? People are not policy proposals, and thus

> > choosing by

> > > consensus is splitting hairs with the election process we

> > already have.

> > > Save the consensus for the proposals, and the election for people.

> > >

> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Consensus may even take months, and this

> > can?t fly

> > > when we want to put people in the vacant roles.

> > >

> > > d.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Co-chairs should not have a hand in the

> > consensus,

> > > but only sit back and let the community decide for themselves.

> > > Additionally, the consensus process is not feasible with a

> deadline.

> > >

> > > e.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Focus on polishing the current electoral

> process

> > > instead of complicating other untested forms of ?election?.

> > >

> > > f.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? The current status quo?s election should

> > be the

> > > only option in choosing for the roles, and not through less

> > transparent

> > > means.

> > >

> > > g.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Board would be interfering too much on

> > issues that

> > > deal with PDP

> > >

> > > Chairs Decision:? ? No Consensus

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 3.? ? ? ?Chairs Election Process

> > >

> > > This proposal aims at introducing an online voting system for the

> > > Co-Chairs election. The following are the opposition to this

> > proposal.

> > >

> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?This policy reduces participation. Equal

> > > representation is violated because the board has unprecedented

> > power.

> > >

> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? There is also not enough information on the

> > logistics

> > > of the vote (e-voting).

> > >

> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?There is a contradiction on when the term ends

> > > during the meeting. ?The term ends during the first PPM

> > corresponding to

> > > the end of the term for which they were appointed? is not clear

> > enough, and

> > > ?A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day of the PPM

> > and no

> > > later than the last day of the PPM as determined by mutual

> > agreement of the

> > > current Chair and the new Chair? contradicts each other.

> > >

> > > d.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Gender restriction on 3.3.1.3 , some community

> > > members argue it is impractical and maybe even unfair if we

> > force both

> > > chairs to have different genders.

> > >

> > > e.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Issues around which voter's register should be

> > > adopted

> > >

> > > Chairs Decision: No Consensus

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 4.? ? ? ?Board Prerogatives

> > >

> > > This proposal aims at clarifying how the board and the PDWG? works.

> > > However, there were a few oppositions to this proposal except for a

> > > specific section.

> > >

> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?It seems like a piecemeal approach to

> > dealing with

> > > issues.

> > >

> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Opposition to the section below

> > >

> > > *?As an exception of the preceding paragraph, in the absence of

> > elections

> > > processes for aspects related to the PDP (co-chairs, appeal

> > committee),

> > > those aspects will be still handled by the board in consultation

> > with the

> > > community. However, this is also a temporary measure and also

> > specific

> > > draft policy proposals should be introduced for that*?. The authors

> > > agreed to remove the above section hence

> > >

> > > Chairs Decision: Consensus provided the above section is removed

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 5.? ? ? ?Policy Compliance Dashboard

> > >

> > > The policy proposal seeks to provide a framework or a policy

> > compliance

> > > dashboard be developed by AFRINIC and incorporated in myAFRINIC

> > (and future

> > > member?s communication platforms).? It will allow a periodic

> > review of the

> > > policy compliance status of each member. It will also enable

> > members to

> > > receive automated notifications for any issue. Staff will

> > receive repeated

> > > warnings of lack of compliance or severe violations enshrined in

> > the CPM.

> > > However, there are several oppositions to this proposal, such as:

> > >

> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?This policy seems to be redundant of the

> > status quo

> > > as violations are already checked and processed by the human staff.

> > >

> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? There is already an existing system of

> > guidelines on

> > > keeping track of the violations of members.

> > >

> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?The policy is not binding and does not enforce

> > > members actually to follow the rules and not violate policies.

> > >

> > > d.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Ignorance could be a convenient excuse for

> > violations

> > > because one could claim that they never got notified about their

> > violations.

> > >

> > > e.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? There is no comprehensive system on how the

> > board

> > > should take proper actions once members violate policies, nor

> > does it give

> > > guidelines based on the severity of the violations.

> > >

> > > f.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? This policy takes away resources that

> > could be used

> > > for more beneficial pursuits to AFRINIC for something existing

> > in the

> > > system.

> > >

> > > g.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?It an administrative? process, and this

> > should be

> > > left to staff

> > >

> > > Chairs Decision:? NO rough Consensus

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 6.? ? ? ?Abuse Contact Update

> > >

> > > The proposal makes it mandatory for AFRINIC to include in each

> > resource

> > > registration, a contact where network abuse from users of those

> > resources

> > > will be reported.? The proposal whois DB attribute (abuse-c) to

> > be used to

> > > publish abuse public contact information. There?s also a process

> > to ensure

> > > that the recipient must receive abuse report and that contacts are

> > > validated by AFRINIC regularly. However, there some opposition

> > to the

> > > proposal there are:

> > >

> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Staff analysis on how it affects legacy

> > holder not

> > > conclusive? (not sure why this should affect legacy holders)

> > >

> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? The proposal doesn?t state what will be the

> > > consequences of one member fails to comply. Why are we creating

> > the abuse

> > > contact when there is no consequence for not providing the abuse

> > contact

> > >

> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Abuse contact email and issues with GDPR

> > concerning

> > > the whois database

> > >

> > > d.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? No proper definition of the term Abuse

> > >

> > > e.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? To force members to reply to their abuse

> > email is not

> > > in the scope of AFRINIC.

> > >

> > > Chairs Decision: No rough consensus

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 7.? ? ? ?RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC

> > Address Space

> > >

> > > The proposal instructs AFRINIC to create ROAs for all

> > unallocated and

> > > unassigned address space under its control. This will enable

> > networks

> > > performing RPKI-based BGP Origin Validation to easily reject all

> > the bogon

> > > announcements covering resources managed by AFRINIC. However,

> > there are

> > > many oppositions such as:

> > >

> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Allowing resource holders to create AS0/

> > ROA will

> > > lead to an increase of even more invalid prefixes in the routing

> > table.

> > >

> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Revocation time of AS0 state, and the time

> > for new

> > > allocation doesn?t match.

> > >

> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Other RIRs don?t have a similar the policy

> > > therefore, it can not be effective

> > >

> > > d.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? This will become a uniform policy if it is not

> > > globally implemented, which causes additional stress.

> > >

> > > e.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Validity period:? ?if members decide to

> > implement it,

> > > is it not better to recover the space if it is kept unused for

> > too long?

> > >

> > > f.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? How do we revoke the ROA? How long does it

> > take to

> > > revoke it (chain/ refreshing )?

> > >

> > > g.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?What happens if AFRINIC accidentally issues

> > a ROA

> > > for an address in error?

> > >

> > > h.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? It also might affect the neighbours and

> involves

> > > monitoring of unallocated spaces.

> > >

> > > i.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Possibility of it being used against a

> > member who

> > > is yet to pay dues.

> > >

> > > Suggestions were made to improve the policy such as

> > >

> > > a)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? The automatic creation of AS0 ROAs should be

> > limited

> > > to space that has never been allocated by an RIR or part of a

> legacy

> > > allocation.

> > >

> > > b)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? AFRINIC should require the explicit consent

> > of the

> > > previous holder to issue AS0 ROAs in respect of re-claimed,

> > returned, etc,

> > > space.

> > >

> > > c)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Any ROAs issued under this policy should be

> > issued

> > > and published in a way that makes it operationally easy for a

> > relying party

> > > to ignore them (probably by issuing under a separate TA).

> > >

> > > d)? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? The proposal should include the clause ?as

> > used in

> > > APNIC as to dues not paid on time.?

> > >

> > > Chairs Decision: No consensus

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 8.? ? ? ?IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers (Comprehensive Scope)

> > >

> > > The proposal puts in place a mechanism to transfer IPv4 and

> > (some ASN)

> > > resources between AFRINIC and other RIRs and between AFRINIC

> > > members/entities. Some conditions are attached to the source and

> > recipient

> > > based on need and disclosure made. The inter-RIR transfers will be

> > > suspended if the number of outgoing IPv4 addresses exceeds the

> > incoming

> > > ones for six consecutive months. However, there are oppositions

> > to it

> > >

> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ASN Transfer is not necessary

> > >

> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Issue of board inferring: no board in all of

> > the five

> > > RIRs have ever been involved in deciding a transfer or allocating

> IP

> > > address. It is not the board's responsibility.

> > >

> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Suspending clause with no reinstalling

> > clause. This

> > > mainly makes the policy potentially invalid.

> > >

> > > Chairs Decision: No consensus.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 9.? ? ? ?AFRINIC Number Resource Transfer

> > >

> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Not realistic for one-way inter RIR resource

> > > transfer as it has to be reciprocal. One way would never happen

> > as only

> > > global resources can come in and go out

> > >

> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? It would be difficult for the recipient to

> > follow the

> > > rules of AFRINIC if they are not in the African region.

> > >

> > > c.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?No need for ASN transfer. If one is moving

> > regions

> > > and doesn't have an ASN in the new region, it can request and

> > receive from

> > > the local RIRs

> > >

> > > d.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Additional attributes create none-operational

> > > complexity in the whois database.

> > >

> > > Chairs Decision: No consensus.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > 10.? ?Resource Transfer Policy

> > >

> > > This proposal aims to introduce Inter RIR transfer. However, it

> > has the

> > > following opposition

> > >

> > > a.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?Issues with Legacy holder transfer is

> > potentially

> > > considered none-reciprocal by ARIN

> > >

> > > b.? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? Potential abuse of AFRINIC free pool without

> > the time

> > > limit of receiving an allocation from AFRINIC.

> > >

> > > Chairs Decision: The proposal is the least contested of all the 3

> > > competing proposals. However because of the community?s desire

> > and clear

> > > expression for the? need for an Inter RIR transfer, we, the

> > Co-chairs,

> > > believe that in the interest of the community we should focus on

> > a proposal

> > > rather than several similar ones. This desire was clearly

> > expressed at the

> > > AFRINIC 31 meeting in Angola. Therefore, We suggest that the

> > authors of

> > > this proposal make the following amendments:

> > >

> > > ?? ? ? ? ?5.7.3.2? Source entities are not eligible to receive

> > further

> > > IPv4 allocations or assignments from AFRINIC for 12 months

> > period after the

> > > transfer.

> > >

> > > ?? ? ? ? ?5.7.4.3. Transferred legacy resources will still be

> > regarded as

> > > legacy resources.

> > >

> > > Chairs Decision: Provided that the above are amended, the

> > decisions is

> > > Rough Consensus is achieved

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Based on the above, The updated version of the follow proposal

> which

> > > achieved rough consensus would be posted on the PDWG website

> > >

> > > *1.? ? ? ?**Board Prerogatives *

> > >

> > > *2.? ? ? ?**Resource Transfer Policy*

> > >

> > > Therefore, these two policies are now on last call.

> > >

> > > Co-Chair

> > > PDWG

> > >

> > > Website <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng

> > <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng>>, Weekly Bulletin

> > > <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin

> > <http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin>> UGPortal

> > > <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/

> > <http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>> PGPortal

> > > <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/

> > <https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/>>

> > >

> > > _______________________________________________

> > > 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>

> > >

> > -------------- next part --------------

> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

> > URL:

> > <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200925/a8a5d980/attachment.html

> > <

> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200925/a8a5d980/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 168, Issue 213

> > *************************************

> >

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > 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/20200925/1e6effea/attachment.html

> >

>

> ------------------------------

>

> Subject: Digest Footer

>

> _______________________________________________

> RPD mailing list

> RPD at afrinic.net

> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd

>

>

> ------------------------------

>

> End of RPD Digest, Vol 168, Issue 219

> *************************************

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200925/585666e4/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the RPD mailing list