Search RPD Archives
[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.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list