Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx
lucilla fornaro
lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com
Sat Sep 26 09:18:55 UTC 2020
hi Anthony,
I support your comment. I see no reason to postpone the discussion of such
an important matter when we can try to solve the problem now. I think it is
a way better to use the time that we have to discuss and find a solution
now rather than rush later.
Lucilla
Il giorno sab 26 set 2020 alle ore 17:29 Anthony Ubah <
ubah.tonyiyke at gmail.com> ha scritto:
> Hello Fernando,
>
> You have simply stated that time is at our disposal. When the transfer
> policy for LACNIC was approved, there was a 1year gestation window for
> implementation before the policy went live. This policy upon passing last
> call will still pass through a similar process and duration. While we can
> liken these scenarios, it's will be wrong to juxtapose the exhaustion
> process and period of LACNIC and AFRINIC. This is so because of factors
> like quantity of available resources, regional internet growth index in the
> region, population etc. Did you factor these in your analysis.
>
> When is the best time to plan for tomorrow?
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Anthony Ubah
>
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2020, 05:04 <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: Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx (Fernando Frediani)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 01:03:35 -0300
>> From: Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
>> To: Ibeanusi Elvis <ibeanusielvis at gmail.com>
>> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx
>> Message-ID: <fe3e1857-8274-c93c-11d1-42efe92f627a at gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>>
>> I never mentioned "not do to anything", just to get the things right
>> rather than rush,even if it takes a couple of more months.
>> It is much worst to get a bad policy than have none. The examples I put
>> was to show that this scenario is not as terrible as some people are
>> putting as almost if the internet was going to stop work if this policy
>> doesn't advance.
>>
>> Even if it takes a couple more of months to get that things right and
>> out of this mess it will not be a big deal at all for the region.
>> It's not true this proposal works. It still lacks confirmations
>> specially from other RIRs.
>> "Many more years" is of course an exaggeration on your side and we are
>> talking about months rather than years which surely will not hurt.
>>
>> The legacy stuff is currently like this: it loses its status, it is like
>> this in other places as well which shows this is the obvious thing to
>> keep. This was never mentioned in the discussion of this proposal for
>> months and changed at the very last minute which gives no chance to
>> others to equally oppose. If there is something to be discussed in
>> another proposal is if the current status should change or not, not what
>> is being trying to be done at rush.
>>
>> There is no "forcing them to lose their legacy status". Whoever sell
>> them don't care other than the money they receive. Whoever receives is
>> only interested in the usage of the resources. What is being said about
>> this is not correct how things really are in practical.
>>
>> Fernando
>>
>> On 26/09/2020 00:47, Ibeanusi Elvis wrote:
>> > Dear Fernando,
>> >
>> > "When LACNIC transitioned from Phase 2 to Phase 3 of the exhaustion
>> > phases which is very similar to what just happened to AfriNic Phase 2,
>> > it took exactly *3 years and 6 months*?for it to be completely empty?.
>> >
>> > According to what you are insinuating, it is preferable not to do
>> > anything about the resources which are still going to exhaust. Thats
>> > makes no sense, it will be better if preparations are made prior to
>> > the entire exhaustion of the resources. LACNIC might have lasted 3
>> > years and 6months before it completely emptied that does not mean we
>> > should take the same route as them, you learn from others not entirely
>> > copy their system or mode of handling things.
>> >
>> > Additionally, ?good or not organisation survived, found their way to
>> > work with this new scenario now there is a proper and well discussed
>> > proposal that works well for everybody and allow in and out transfer
>> > from ALL other RIRs?
>> >
>> > The fact that the organisation survived does not 100% imply that if
>> > the same system of waiting till everything ends entirely is applied,
>> > AFRINIC will survive. It is best to take early necessary precautions
>> > and not wait till when we are in a desperate and maybe unsurvivable
>> > state before we do something. Also, this proposal is well detailed and
>> > works. Waiting for many more years and years of discussion is just
>> > compounding the staffs of the AFRINIC organisation and the community
>> > with excessive work as well.
>> >
>> > Regarding the legacy resource holders, it is better to have a
>> > dedicated legacy proposal for them and work with them not forcing them
>> > to lose their legacy status.
>> >
>> > Elvis
>> >
>> >
>> >> Consider that LACNIC has a much higher demand than AfriNic and during
>> >> most of these 3 years it survived without a Inter-RIR policy that was
>> >> discussed for quiet a while before it reached consensus, plus the
>> >> time it took for it to be implemented by staff which happened just
>> >> recently in middle of this year.On Sep 26, 2020, at 11:39, Fernando
>> >> Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> A couple of information for those who are scary about "the pool be
>> >> empty shortly".
>> >>
>> >> When LACNIC transitioned from Phase 2 to Phase 3 of the exhaustion
>> >> phases which is very similar to what just happened to AfriNic Phase
>> >> 2, it took exactly *3 years and 6 months* for it to be completely
>> empty.
>> >> Consider that LACNIC has a much higher demand than AfriNic and during
>> >> most of these 3 years it survived without a Inter-RIR policy that was
>> >> discussed for quiet a while before it reached consensus, plus the
>> >> time it took for it to be implemented by staff which happened just
>> >> recently in middle of this year.
>> >>
>> >> Good or not organizations survived, found their way to work with this
>> >> new scenario e now there is a proper and well discussed proposal that
>> >> work well for everybody and allow in and out transfer from ALL other
>> >> RIRs. And by the way legacy resources lose its status like is expected.
>> >> And by the way, there is absolutely no "fight" with legacy resource
>> >> holders, not at all. They don't care what will happen when they sell
>> >> their resources on sold. Whoever is buying are not really much
>> >> interested in this status, but in acquiring them for their usage and
>> >> that's it.
>> >>
>> >> AfriNic can take some more time, specially in the current uncertainty
>> >> scenario to get a proper and better discussed proposal that will in
>> >> fact be reciprocal to all other RIRs and benefit the region to keep
>> >> going after the pool is completely empty which still takes some time.
>> >>
>> >> Fernando
>> >>
>> >> On 25/09/2020 22:08, lucilla fornaro wrote:
>> >>> Dear all,
>> >>>
>> >>> Accepting this policy implies that AFRINIC will develop a way to get
>> >>> even more resources to satisfy and push the demand of the developing
>> >>> market.
>> >>> We often talked about smoother business (why the community is so
>> >>> scared about this word?) operations, the policy does not facilitate
>> >>> any fraud. All resources are allocated and transferred in the base
>> >>> of a proven need. It is an expensive process, and it is reasonable
>> >>> to think that no one would operate a fraud that causes loss instead
>> >>> of benefits.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, shortly the pool will be empty, but the policy proposes a way
>> >>> to fight it and promote access to further resources before it's too
>> >>> late.
>> >>>
>> >>> regards,
>> >>>
>> >>> Lucilla
>> >>>
>> >>> Il giorno sab 26 set 2020 alle ore 09:49 Ibeanusi Elvis
>> >>> <ibeanusielvis at gmail.com <mailto:ibeanusielvis at gmail.com>> ha
>> scritto:
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear Marcus, Dear Community,
>> >>>
>> >>> I do not concur with your analogy and accusations on the
>> >>> proposal or policy written ?by Anthony Ikechukwu Ubah and Taiwo
>> >>> Oyewande called ?Resource Transfer Policy? as being a hindrance
>> >>> to the smooth operation of business, is entirely false. The
>> >>> major intention of this policy is to support and boost
>> >>> businesses i Africa not to hinder the operation of business.
>> >>>
>> >>> Likewise, the policy is not based on a fake problem of the
>> >>> African region. This is baseless accusation and a wrong
>> >>> self-interpretation of what factual intentions of the Resource
>> >>> Transfer Policy, Anthony and Taiwo should be appreciated for
>> >>> pointing out this issue.
>> >>>
>> >>> On the other hand, "/Basically, the Resource Transfer Policy is
>> >>> intended to take Internet Resources on one region to the other.
>> >>> We all know that Africa is at its developing stage and needs
>> >>> more internet resources to support its developmental process.
>> >>> Accepting this policy means that the little resources left in
>> >>> our region will be taken away, especially when we don?t have the
>> >>> mechanism in place to enforce the auditing of the use of the
>> >>> allocated resources.//?/
>> >>>
>> >>> /The purpose of this policy is to support a??TWO-WAY INTER-RIR
>> >>> POLICY? which implies that AFRINIC can receive and transfer
>> >>> resources. With the exhaustion of the IPv4, the adoption of this
>> >>> policy will do a greater good to the African?continent as it
>> >>> supports the circulation of resources into and out of all the
>> RIRs /
>> >>> /
>> >>> /
>> >>> /Best, /
>> >>> /Elvis/
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Sep 26, 2020, at 02:24, Taiwo Oyewande
>> >>>> <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com
>> >>>> <mailto:taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ?Hi all,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Discussing a problem statement that will not be implemented in
>> >>>> the CPM is not really taking us forward.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> There is an obvious war against the co chairs for doing a job
>> >>>> that the community mandated them to do by the status of their
>> >>>> election. The co-chairs discussed each points raised with the
>> >>>> various authors and tried to see if all the points were duly
>> >>>> addressed before making their decisions.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I saw a false and misleading statement about the cochairs
>> >>>> trying to get the authors of 2 of the 3 related policies
>> >>>> against the authors of the 3rd policy. Is this what members of
>> >>>> this working group has turned to?
>> >>>> Trying to create a bad name for another member using scenarios
>> >>>> that never occurred. I think that is the height of desperation
>> >>>> and such defamation of character should not be encouraged on
>> >>>> this list
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Taiwo
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 25 Sep 2020, at 14:17, Marcus K. G. Adomey
>> >>>>> <madomey at hotmail.com <mailto:madomey at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ?
>> >>>>> Dear all,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The Policy ?Resource Transfer Policy?
>> >>>>> (AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT01) proposed by Anthony Ikechukwu Ubah
>> >>>>> and Taiwo Oyewande is based on a fake problem for our region.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (1) ?The current policy fails to support a two-way Inter-RIR
>> >>>>> policy? ? And so what? This was an intra-RIR transfer policy,
>> >>>>> not meant to be Inter-RIR
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (2) ?there by hindering smooth business operation?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Can the authors of the policy show how the current situation
>> >>>>> is ?hindering smooth business operation??
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Further, they should tell us what they mean by ?smooth
>> >>>>> business operation?.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> (3) ?development and growth in the region?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Can the authors of the policy prove that the current status is
>> >>>>> hindering ?development and growth in the region??
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It is clear that the authors of the policy have used
>> >>>>> unsubstantiated claims to buttress the need for this policy.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Basically, the Resource Transfer Policy is intended to take
>> >>>>> Internet Resources on one region to the other. We all know
>> >>>>> that Africa is at its developing stage and needs more internet
>> >>>>> resources to support its developmental process. Accepting this
>> >>>>> policy means that the little resources left in our region will
>> >>>>> be taken away, especially when we don?t have the mechanism in
>> >>>>> place to enforce the auditing of the use of the allocated
>> >>>>> resources.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Moreover, any unmanaged inter-RIR transfer policy will weaken
>> >>>>> the development of the Internet in the region as we have no
>> >>>>> control over this global market which never played in our
>> >>>>> favor. It may also affect AFRINIC operations.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Recent findings discussed on this list show how transferred
>> >>>>> resources are being used. The global community is yet to
>> >>>>> discuss the impact on transfer. I am more concerned for our
>> >>>>> region.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Reconsider your decision and let us discuss the best approach
>> >>>>> to engage the Region into the global resources transfer world.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Marcus
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>>> *From:* Murungi Daniel <dmurungi at wia.co.tz
>> >>>>> <mailto:dmurungi at wia.co.tz>>
>> >>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:59 PM
>> >>>>> *To:* rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net
>> >>>>> <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
>> >>>>> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx
>> >>>>> Hello,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Can the authors of the resource transfer policy in the last
>> >>>>> call explain, which problem is being addressed?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The problem statement is?awkward to say the least. The issue
>> >>>>> with the problem statement was raised in Luanda and during the
>> >>>>> virtual AIS. How can we can adopt a proposal when the
>> >>>>> problem?statement is out of scope of the PDP?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ??-
>> >>>>> 1. Summary of the problem being addressed by this proposal
>> >>>>> The current policy fails to support a two-way Inter-RIR
>> >>>>> policy, thereby hindering smooth business operation,
>> >>>>> development, and growth in the region. This proposal aims to
>> >>>>> establish an efficient and business-friendly mechanism to
>> >>>>> allow a?number of resources to be transferred from/to other
>> >>>>> regions. This proposal outlines a model in which AFRINIC can
>> >>>>> freely transfer number resources to/from other regions, i.e.
>> >>>>> RIPE NCC, APNIC, ARIN and LACNIC. This includes both
>> >>>>> IPv4?addresses and AS numbers.
>> >>>>> ??-
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Murungi Daniel
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Sep 23, 2020, at 10:39 PM, Fernando Frediani
>> >>>>>> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hello
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> There is no much I can do other than state my *opposition to
>> >>>>>> this proposal* to advance and reach any consensus mainly
>> >>>>>> because 5.7.4.3 has been inverted from what was originally in
>> >>>>>> the proposal and only changed at last minute due to some
>> >>>>>> comments in the PPM going straight to last call which didn't
>> >>>>>> give opportunity to the community re-evaluate this major
>> >>>>>> change and if it's suitable to the region or not.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Co-Chairs cannot advance this proposal to rough consensus the
>> >>>>>> way it is and I urge and ask them again to bring it back to
>> >>>>>> discussion to find out a resolution to these opened issues.
>> >>>>>> Multiple people raised substantial concerns about it already.
>> >>>>>> There is no way it can be considered 'rough consensus'.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I also understand there may be a hurry to get a Inter-RIR
>> >>>>>> transfer policy as soon as possible, but we must care about
>> >>>>>> what is most important than that which is get policies to
>> >>>>>> reflect what is really good for the region and not just to a
>> >>>>>> few actors, even if it takes a bit longer. I support Jordi's
>> >>>>>> suggestion to have another PPM in a few months so perhaps
>> >>>>>> this proposal can advance from that point in time. LACNIC
>> >>>>>> remained about 2 years without a Inter-RIR transfer policy
>> >>>>>> after it run out of addresses for new organizations and
>> >>>>>> survived. AfriNic will survive if it has to wait a few more
>> >>>>>> months in order to get things really right.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Now going to the merit of the proposal specially the main
>> >>>>>> point I oppose (5.7.4.3):
>> >>>>>> There is no sense at all to keep considering transferred
>> >>>>>> legacy resources as legacy. This doesn't work that way and
>> >>>>>> has a proper reason to be like that which is fix a historical
>> >>>>>> internet problem and reduce legacy resources with time as
>> >>>>>> they get transferred to 'normal' organizations who purchased
>> >>>>>> them in the market for example.
>> >>>>>> In this way organizations receiving these resources are bind
>> >>>>>> to the same rules everybody else making it much fair to
>> >>>>>> everybody and making no distinction between members.
>> >>>>>> Allowing resources to remain considered legacy only
>> >>>>>> contributed to abuses and unfairness allowing those who can
>> >>>>>> pay more do whatever they like which is bad for the rest of
>> >>>>>> the Internet community which are subject to the same rules
>> >>>>>> that apply equally to them.
>> >>>>>> If transferred legacy resources are not considered legacy
>> >>>>>> anymore more and more they will apply equally for everybody
>> >>>>>> as they become as a normal resource within any RIR. There has
>> >>>>>> been a strong reason for this be like that until now and to
>> >>>>>> continue like that.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Regards
>> >>>>>> Fernando
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 23/09/2020 09:49, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Hi Taiwo, all,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I've looked into the doc.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Let me say something before going into a more detailed
>> analysis: I *fully support* this proposal, and I will be happy to withdraw
>> it once:
>> >>>>>>> 1) The staff confirms that all the points on the staff
>> analysis have been cleared and thus, the policy could be implemented and
>> will be functional in the intended purpose.
>> >>>>>>> 2) The board ratifies the policy (which means also it passes
>> the last call).
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Why? If anything in the process fails, I still believe my
>> proposal is clearer and never mind is my proposal or this one I'm happy to
>> work with the authors to make sure to resolve the issues that may happen as
>> indicated in 1 and 2 above (hopefully there are no issues).
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I've now a more detailed analysis, please really, needs to be
>> taken seriously with the staff or we may ruin the policy and not allow to
>> be functional.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> There is something which doesn't make sense: The text in
>> point 5.7. The CPM should be read always as "actual" so "soon will exhaust
>> ..." is not logic, neither needed for the purpose of this policy. In
>> addition, there are typos there ...
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> This is an editorial change that according to the PDP should
>> be possible as part of the last call. I will suggest to keep it simple:
>> >>>>>>> 5.7 IPv4 Resources transfer
>> >>>>>>> This policy applies to an organization with a justified need
>> for IPv4 resources (recipients) and organizations with IPv4 resources which
>> no longer need (sources).
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I see that the "disputes" issue has been resolved! Tks!
>> Anyway, I think there is another editorial problem there.
>> >>>>>>> Actual text:
>> >>>>>>> 5.7.3.1 The source must be the current rightful holder of the
>> IPv4 address resources registered with any RIR, and shall be in compliance
>> with the policies of the receiving RIR, and shall not be involved in any
>> dispute as to the status of those resources.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I suggest:
>> >>>>>>> 5.7.3.1 The source must be the current rightful holder of the
>> IPv4 address resources registered with any RIR, in compliance with the
>> relevant policies, and shall not be involved in any dispute as to the
>> status of those resources.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Keeping the "policies of the receiving RIR" is contradictory
>> ... changing it with "relevant policies" allows both RIRs to ensure that
>> everything is correct.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Grammar maybe, I'm not English native speaker:
>> >>>>>>> "for 12 months period" or "for a 12 months period"
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I think 5.7.3.3. doesn't add any value, it could be removed
>> and doesn't change anything: if there is no limite, no need to mention it.
>> If there is not agreement, clearly the transfer will not happen because the
>> parties don't authorize it, and then the RIR(s) don't authorize it!
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Similarly 5.7.4.2. could be removed as well. We already said
>> that the recipient should comply with policies (5.7.3.1), so what is this
>> adding? Just superfluous text.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Note also my imputs in the previous email, regarding the hold
>> period and the legacy status. I think 5.7.4.3, should be "IPv4 legacy
>> resources "Transferred incoming or within AFRINIC IPv4 legacy resources
>> will no longer be regarded as legacy resources".
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> 5.7.5.1 is already indicated by the staff as something
>> problematic with the actual wording. The transferring party (the source)
>> may not have any relation (not a member) with the receiving RIR. With this
>> text we are enforcing *all the RIRs* to offer a standard template and
>> process on our mandate. WE CAN'T DO THAT. Our policies only have a mandate
>> in AFRINIC, not in the other RIRs.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> If we just remove section 5.7.5, and leave it to the staff as
>> part of the operational procedure, the the problem is resolved because the
>> existing process among the all other 4 RIRs for transfers will be "joined"
>> by AFRINIC. It is just a matter of interconection among systems and
>> processes!
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I think all this should be carefully studied among the
>> authors and the staff and the chairs should make sure that the verstion
>> coming to last call has corrected all those issues.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I hope all this is useful.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Regards,
>> >>>>>>> Jordi
>> >>>>>>> @jordipalet
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> ?El 23/9/20 9:38, "Taiwo Oyewande"<taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com> escribi?:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Hello PDWG,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Attached is the updated version of the Resource Transfer
>> Policy proposal. As recommended, changes have been effected on sub-section
>> 5.7.3.2, and 5.7.4.3 according to the co-chair summary.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>> 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>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> **********************************************
>> >>>>>>> IPv4 is over
>> >>>>>>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> >>>>>>> http://www.theipv6company.com <
>> http://www.theipv6company.com/>
>> >>>>>>> The IPv6 Company
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> This electronic message contains information which may be
>> privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the
>> exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
>> authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
>> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
>> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
>> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including
>> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal
>> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this
>> communication and delete it.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>>> 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>
>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>>> 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>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>>> 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>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> 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>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> RPD mailing list
>> >>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> >>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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/20200926/7e0f1916/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 231
>> *************************************
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200926/abd14968/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list