[rpd] Transfer Policy Proposal v.3.docx

[lucilla fornaro]

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-0001.html>