Search RPD Archives
[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