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

[rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen sami at marwan.ma
Wed Oct 21 13:56:11 UTC 2020




On 10/21/20 2:44 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

> Hi Sami,

>

> Thanks for your input. I agree with what you have written, but the devil is in the details.

> Change to some degree is allowed in last call, in my opinion.


Change in grammar, wording... sure ! In meaning, no.


> If the change is immaterial, as this one is, I think the correct move is to advance the policy.

> I say this having witnessed the difficulties in moving policies to implementation status at AFRINIC.

> In the light of these difficulties it is unreasonable for me to give up the hard-won progress in exchange for what to me is a quibble about something unimportant that can be changed later if necessary.

>

> We simply disagree on a few things. The importance of getting a policy in place, the materiality of the legacy wordage, and the propriety of the process regarding consensus and changes in last call. Maybe I think the policy is more important than you do, or you think adhering to proper policy development is more important than I do. There are valid arguments on both sides.

>

> I think we have both made our points clear.

>

> Regards,

> Mike

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen <sami at marwan.ma>

> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2020 9:10 AM

> To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>

> Cc: rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy <rpd at afrinic.net>

> Subject: Re: [rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

>

> Hi Mike,

>

> The policy has undergone a change. So it must be reviewed. For that, it needs to go back to the list. Whether the part that's been changed is relevant to some or not, is irrelevant. If a part of a policy is irrelevant, it must be removed. But that's also a change. Either way it goes back to the list.

>

> Reviewing policies in last call is a bad idea. It sets a bad precedent where policies are modified in the last minute without proper discussion.

>

> Last call is for a last round of humming, let's not make something else.

>

> HTH

>

> Regards,

> Sami

>

>

>

>> On Oct 20, 2020, at 18:49, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:

>>

>> Hi Sami,

>>

>> Points 2, 3, 4, and 10 of the post I replied to, which undergird the problem, all relate to the legacy issue.

>> It is the bone of contention, take it away and the constellation of problems related to moderators, last-call, appeals, etc. will go away, in my opinion.

>> The reciprocity issue has no relation to legacy and is editorial: "recipient must be an RIR member....".

>>

>> I don't think I am diverging, instead I am simply saying the legacy issue and the editorial change are insignificant in the context of the need for this policy.

>>

>> Regards,

>> Mike

>>

>>

>>

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

>> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 1:06 PM

>> To: rpd at afrinic.net

>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

>>

>>

>>

>>> On 10/20/20 5:10 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

>>> Hello,

>>>

>>> The legacy issue is immaterial.

>>

>> You're diverging. That's not what's being discussed.

>>

>>> The "missing dues" that wouldn't be paid by retention of legacy status have never been enumerated.

>>> ARIN has a larger legacy community than AFRINIC, if that were a burden I would expect ARIN's fees and dues to be higher than AFRINIC.

>>> However the opposite is true, AFRINIC fees are generally higher than ARIN's.

>>>

>>> The number of inter-regional transfers that have occurred with retention of legacy status is tiny, and none have occurred at AFRINIC.

>>> Nobody in the transfer market cares about retention of legacy status (or not).

>>>

>>> So in my opinion, derailing this proposal over this insignificant matter at this late date is unwarranted.

>>> Legacy status is something you can debate about later, and change the policy then.

>>> It's not something to hold back this important proposal over.

>>>

>>> Regards,

>>> Mike

>>>

>>>

>>> -----Original Message-----

>>> From: Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>

>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2020 11:50 AM

>>> To: rpd at afrinic.net

>>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy

>>>

>>> +1

>>>

>>>> On 10/20/20 4:36 PM, Jaco Kroon wrote:

>>>> Hi Abdul,

>>>>

>>>> With all due respect to both yourself and Fernando. I personally

>>>> think you're both right, and both wrong.

>>>>

>>>> Please just stop and read Abdul.

>>>>

>>>> 1. Yes, it's crazy/absurd that it's come to this.

>>>>

>>>> 2. No, the change was made at/after the PPM and straight into last

>>>> call. So whether or not this was made prior to last call or during

>>>> last call is actually irrelevant.

>>>>

>>>> 3. The first opportunity many of us had to see this legacy change

>>>> was during last call.

>>>>

>>>> 4. Many of us acknowledge the need for change to the legacy no

>>>> longer clause but we don't agree with the change as has been taken

>>>> to last call. Many alternatives that would also achieve reciprocity

>>>> has been proposed.

>>>>

>>>> 5. I have actually re-read CPM section 3 last night, and have

>>>> already highlighted that changes are neither permitted nor

>>>> prevented, but I believe some common sense here should prevail in

>>>> that from the CPM it's plain that the intention is for final review,

>>>> and that any concerns raised that's valid should have the proposal go back to discussion.

>>>>

>>>> 6. I disagree that your actions are duly justified, but I can see

>>>> from your perspective why you believe this to be the case.

>>>>

>>>> 7. This is however irrelevant as there is plainly not consensus on

>>>> a policy proposal in last call, and this has been the case from the

>>>> moment it went to last call, so when you took it to ratification,

>>>> there is absolutely no way this could have been in line with the CPM

>>>> process, and if it was, then I would propose that we revisit that and fix that too.

>>>>

>>>> 8. You had the sense to revert the ratification decision. Now

>>>> we're asking you to have the sense to realise that there isn't

>>>> consensus and bring the proposal (along with the other inter-RIR

>>>> transfer

>>>> policies) back to discussion.

>>>>

>>>> 9. I'm not sure what the conditions was, but either the conditions

>>>> were wrong, or the implementation thereof was wrong. Specifically:

>>>>

>>>> 10. Retaining legacy status is all good and well on outbound

>>>> transfers (Afrinic can't prescribe to other RIRs), but we don't want

>>>> to have legacy status retained on intra-RIR or inbound transfers.

>>>> Jordi pointed out that if any intra-RIR transfers of legacy space

>>>> has happened the change would be detrimental to those that have

>>>> transferred, and the change is thus a complete reversal of previous

>>>> policy. I for one, speaking on behalf of my employer, have no

>>>> interest in paying fees when legacy holders get most of the same services for free.

>>>>

>>>> Yes, I do wish we could finalize this, I don't think anybody is

>>>> disputing that we urgently need this. But in spite of how much it's

>>>> going to hurt to need this and not have it, having it in a

>>>> non-working state is even worse.

>>>>

>>>> Kind Regards,

>>>> Jaco

>>>>

>>>> On 2020/10/20 16:11, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> Dear Fernando.

>>>>>

>>>>> See my comments inline

>>>>>

>>>>> The thing is so absurd that now we have the justification based

>>>>> that "Editoral word" doesn't appear in the CPM, therefore in the

>>>>> interpretation of one of the chairs it can just be used to change

>>>>> the text anytime in any way at convenience. They call it "diverse

>>>>> definition". Perhaps this is yet another sign that there is not

>>>>> enough experience to conduct the business of CPM and so why so many

>>>>> mistakes have been made.

>>>>>

>>>>> I think it is your justification here that is absurd. Yes, it is

>>>>> true that it does not appear in the CPM or do you want to rewrite the CPM?

>>>>> and I think this is a typical example that you do not have enough

>>>>> leadership experience to understand that: been elected to a

>>>>> position of responsibility comes with the fact that one has to take

>>>>> decisions on behalf of the community. Be clear we never made a

>>>>> single mistake on this issue and all our actions are duly justified.

>>>>>

>>>>> Been elected by the community is not a mandate to do things the way

>>>>> they feel like and to make up stuff that may not have the expected

>>>>> words in the CPM.

>>>>> The idea of using Editorial changes as normal changes to try make

>>>>> the text achieve consensus is so out of touch that has been

>>>>> mentioned as unprecedented many times by several people here before.

>>>>> Everybody used with these forums in any RIR and other organizations

>>>>> know very well what editorial changes are for and definetelly is

>>>>> not to make a proposal try to reach consensus. Trying to force it

>>>>> to be something else will not work.

>>>>>

>>>>> Been elected by the community is enough mandate that we have the

>>>>> confidence of the community and when there is a disagreement to

>>>>> step in line with the CPM and not using /Fernando's/ idea. Read the

>>>>> CPM clearly more especially section 3.6.

>>>>>

>>>>> Legacy status issue doesn't even deserve discussion of its merit at

>>>>> this point because it was changed after the PPM. This is a major

>>>>> change in the proposal, been done after the PPM and can NOT be

>>>>> considered just a a simple "Editorial change". This changes one of

>>>>> the fundamental points o the proposal, at last minute, given no

>>>>> time for discussion for the community, and worse: this was

>>>>> something that had NEVER been mentioned before in months and months of discussion.

>>>>>

>>>>> Be clear, The changes in regards to the legacy status was done

>>>>> before going into the last call. Please read again the condition

>>>>> for the proposal to go into the last call. It was made very clear.

>>>>> Provided those changes are made then the proposal goes into the last call.

>>>>> Therefore it was before the last call. Please don't try and

>>>>> manipulate or create confusion here. If you have any objection to

>>>>> the proposal state them and stop this cheap blackmail.

>>>>>

>>>>> There are more than enough violations of the PDP for their decision

>>>>> to be ruled out by the Appeal Committee.

>>>>>

>>>>> It seems that you are now not just attempting to take over as the

>>>>> WG chair, but also the Appeal committe chair and member.

>>>>>

>>>>> Good luck to you on that

>>>>>

>>>>> Fernando

>>>>>

>>>>> Co-Chair

>>>>>

>>>>> PDWG

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 2:02 PM Fernando Frediani

>>>>> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> The thing is so absurd that now we have the justification based

>>>>> that "Editoral word" doesn't appear in the CPM, therefore in the

>>>>> interpretation of one of the chairs it can just be used to change

>>>>> the text anytime in any way at convenience. They call it "diverse

>>>>> definition". Perhaps this is yet another sign that there is not

>>>>> enough experience to conduct the business of CPM and so why so

>>>>> many mistakes have been made.

>>>>>

>>>>> Been elected by the community is not a mandate to do things the

>>>>> way they feel like and to make up stuff that may not have the

>>>>> expected words in the CPM.

>>>>> The idea of using Editorial changes as normal changes to try make

>>>>> the text achieve consensus is so out of touch that has been

>>>>> mentioned as unprecedented many times by several people here

>>>>> before. Everybody used with these forums in any RIR and other

>>>>> organizations know very well what editorial changes are for and

>>>>> definetelly is not to make a proposal try to reach consensus.

>>>>> Trying to force it to be something else will not work.

>>>>>

>>>>> Legacy status issue doesn't even deserve discussion of its merit

>>>>> at this point because it was changed after the PPM. This is a

>>>>> major change in the proposal, been done after the PPM and can NOT

>>>>> be considered just a a simple "Editorial change". This changes one

>>>>> of the fundamental points o the proposal, at last minute, given no

>>>>> time for discussion for the community, and worse: this was

>>>>> something that had NEVER been mentioned before in months and

>>>>> months of discussion.

>>>>>

>>>>> There are more than enough violations of the PDP for their

>>>>> decision to be ruled out by the Appeal Committee.

>>>>>

>>>>> Fernando

>>>>>

>>>>> On 20/10/2020 04:29, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Hi AK,

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I’m not sure if you followed the thread in ARIN.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> There it was clearly said by the CEO, John Curran, that the

>>>>>> actual version is not reciprocal.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2020-October/068124.htm

>>>>>> l

>>>>>>

>>>>>> <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2020-October/068124.ht

>>>>>> m

>>>>>> l

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I don’t think it is a matter of just one paragraph rewording. I

>>>>>> already told this to the authors. There are several conflicting

>>>>>> paragraphs that need to be reworded to make the complete text

>>>>>> coherent.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You say that the main opponents are the other proposal authors,

>>>>>> of course, it can’t be other way, because everybody is convinced,

>>>>>> they are right.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> However, you’re missing that despite that, I’ve been trying to

>>>>>> help Anthony and Taiwo (they can confirm), even if I think that

>>>>>> the way you’re handling this is not correct according to the PDP

>>>>>> (and this brough me the additional problem of some other people

>>>>>> very angry with me – they don’t understand that I’m trying the

>>>>>> best for the community not for the authors a, b, or c).

>>>>>>

>>>>>> So those are two separate issues (helping to improve the proposal

>>>>>> and doing it in a way that is according to the PDP without any

>>>>>> trace of “PDP illegality”).

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Regarding the legacy there is a wrong working in the text. The

>>>>>> intent was to keep the same situation as we have now for

>>>>>> Intra-RIR, otherwise is not fair with existing transfers and you

>>>>>> need to add some more text to somehow compensate them. So the

>>>>>> text should be “5.7.4.3 Incoming transferred legacy resources

>>>>>> will no longer be regarded as legacy resources”. This way you

>>>>>> keep the reciprocity/compatibility with all the regions but at

>>>>>> the same time, you keep the actual status in AFRINIC compared

>>>>>> with the existing Intra-RIR policy (incomming works for both

>>>>>> inter and intra – we did the same in LACNIC).

>>>>>>

>>>>>> At this point I’m more and more convinced that, unless a new

>>>>>> version is processed in this “last-call” extension, it will not

>>>>>> work, but on the other side, I’m convinced that those are not

>>>>>> just editorial changes and it means is not the right way to

>>>>>> handle this.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I shall insist that the right thing to do at this point is to

>>>>>> declare no-consensus and ask the board to call in December

>>>>>> (sufficient time to prepare for it, and to have a new version, or

>>>>>> even a new policy) for a specific policy meeting just for this

>>>>>> proposal and concentrate the list in discussing all the issues

>>>>>> and a text that we all can agree. Again is not a matter of

>>>>>> authors it is a matter of having the right thing for the community.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I could even suggest that we all the authors of the 3 proposals

>>>>>> get together and find an agreement on this in a single text good

>>>>>> for all. At least we must try. You know that I already suggested

>>>>>> this before the Angola meeting.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Regards,

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Jordi

>>>>>>

>>>>>> @jordipalet

>>>>>>

>>>>>> El 20/10/20 8:21, "ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE"

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

>>>>>> escribió:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Dear Sander and Community,

>>>>>>

>>>>>> We would take my time to respond to you as you hold our

>>>>>> equivalent seat in the RIPE region;

>>>>>>

>>>>>> As per the transfer policy, only about two or three issues were

>>>>>> raised during the last call.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> 1. The problem statement looks like a business problem statement:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Outcome: The problem statement does not go into the CPM hence, it

>>>>>> does not matter

>>>>>>

>>>>>> 2. Issues with Legacy holders: This is a tricky one and there are

>>>>>> no right or wrong answers about it. Legacy holder remanning

>>>>>> legacy holder, some feel is not fair, Legacy holder not

>>>>>> remanning legacy holders some feel it would be better. On this

>>>>>> issue, we have gone back and forward on it because of the diverse

>>>>>> views of the community even as co-chairs we hold a diverse view

>>>>>> on this because both have advantages and disadvantages.

>>>>>> Personally, I have had to change my view on this issue when I got

>>>>>> a superior argument but I have not allowed my personal view to

>>>>>> have any effect on the decision we take on this issue. The

>>>>>> authors indicated that they do not mind whichever way the

>>>>>> community goes on this issue. Originally on the proposal, they

>>>>>> indicated "legacy holders should not remain legacy holders" they

>>>>>> were asked to change this and they also did. Therefore this issue

>>>>>> of Legacy holders can to be discussed separately more importantly

>>>>>> when there is no right or wrong answer on it and the authors have

>>>>>> been very flexible on this issue. The decision on this issue has

>>>>>> been addressed in relation to the transfer policy but it can

>>>>>> still be amended if the community agrees now or later in future.

>>>>>> We just have to go with the majority for now since no right or

>>>>>> wrong answer from our view. We see how this goes.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Finally, on the issue of reciprocity, As far as we all know, the

>>>>>> policy has no reciprocity issue and if any is pointed out then it

>>>>>> can be fixed. We keep getting a vague response regarding this

>>>>>> issue and we cannot wait forever on this.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> If anyone knows of any other issue raised that has not been

>>>>>> fixed apart from emotional issues, please let us know.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> People kept on shouting about what is "Editorial" changes and

>>>>>> what is not, *but the word "Editorial" is not even in the CPM*.

>>>>>> Therefore it is subjected to a diverse definition. In this case,

>>>>>> we as co-chairs elected by the community has to step forward cos

>>>>>> this is our role. To take decisions on behalf of the community in

>>>>>> situations like this. Unfortunately, some people want to take

>>>>>> over this role. We have two co-chairs for a reason and am sure

>>>>>> we both cant be stupid. Some said we should follow the convention

>>>>>> on this issue, we said "/Ok no problem/", Unfortunately, when we

>>>>>> reversed our decision it was the same person that criticised us

>>>>>> as if previous chairs never had reason to reverse their decisions.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> As far as we can see the main opponents of this proposal are

>>>>>> those that have a conflicting proposal and it is impossible for

>>>>>> all three proposals to pass. I hope they get this, We all love

>>>>>> the community and should not think some do more than the others.

>>>>>> We as Co-Chairs have to make a tough but rational decision as to

>>>>>> which of the three is most acceptable to the community. I have

>>>>>> explained this several times and no one as brought forward a

>>>>>> superior argument rather they keep chasing shadows, we took the

>>>>>> decision based on the proposal with the least number of

>>>>>> objections to it. More importantly, the authors have been very

>>>>>> flexible in making changes as suggested by the community.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> We have consistently asked, Please tell us any issue that has not

>>>>>> been fixed with this proposal and rather than getting a direct

>>>>>> answer what we get is you broke the CPM. We ask again point us to

>>>>>> the CPM we broke they cant point us to any.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> We understand that as shepherds for the community, we have to

>>>>>> take tough decisions and we are ready to do that as long as it is

>>>>>> in the best interest of the community.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> My humble suggestion to the community is that we now have time to

>>>>>> review this policy which is still on the last call. *Let us spend

>>>>>> our energy and time to review this in the interest of the

>>>>>> community and leave behind personal and selfish issues and stop

>>>>>> chasing shadows.*

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Hence, we call on the authors of the proposal to start a new

>>>>>> thread with the proposed text and allow for a line by line

>>>>>> discussion so that we can put this behind us and address other

>>>>>> issues that require the attention of the community.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Thanks

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Co-Chair PDWG

>>>>>>

>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 18, 2020 at 9:33 PM Sander Steffann

>>>>>> <sander at steffann.nl <mailto:sander at steffann.nl>> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> On 18-10-2020 12:08, dc at darwincosta.com

>>>>>> <mailto:dc at darwincosta.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> Dear Abdul,

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Can you tell us on what basis you declared rough consensus and

>>>>>>> eventually consensus on this proposal only to comeback and

>>>>>> reverse the

>>>>>>> decision....

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Maybe I’m missing something and your clarification is much

>>>>>> appreciated.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> This would indeed be very helpful. Abdul: please provide

>>>>>> pointers to the

>>>>>> messages on the mailing list where issues were raised and to the

>>>>>> messages those issues were addressed. After all: that is the

>>>>>> basis of

>>>>>> consensus.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Cheers,

>>>>>> Sander

>>>>>>

>>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>>> 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>

>>>>>>

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

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

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

>>>>>> <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>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

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

>>>>>> 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>

>>>>>

>>>>>

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

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

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

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

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>>> RPD mailing list

>>>>> RPD at afrinic.net

>>>>> 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

>>> 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

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

>>

>




More information about the RPD mailing list