Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Reversal of Consensus on Resource Transfer Policy
Ekaterina Kalugina
kay.k.prof at gmail.com
Wed Oct 21 14:31:22 UTC 2020
Dear all,
I agree with Mike. The edits done do not change the essence of the policy,
but rather make sure it is functional and compatible with other RIRs.
At this point, all the objections seem to concern the process and not the
policy itself. And these objections are not even properly justified. Even
if in other RIRs it may be different, the changes done do not violate the
AFRINIC CPM.
We all agree that this policy is necessary. And now we finally have a
proposal that is fully functional. I see no viable reason to undermine all
the progress achieved in the development of this policy. Passing this
policy now would be much more valuable to the region than dragging it on
who knows how many months.
Let us stop sabotaging this important development by insisting on that it
violates some subjective interpretations of the PDP.
Best,
Ekaterina
On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, 16:12 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
wrote:
> The problem lies in the details:
>
> All the other RIRs have explicit PDP text to allow editorial changes in
> the last-call. AFRINIC doesn't have it (that's why I explicitly included
> that in my PDP update proposal).
>
> I can't agree with anyone that think that those changes (editorial) should
> be allowed while the PDP doesn't explicitly mention it.
>
> There is a clear exception: a typo or grammar mistake. In this case it is
> clear that should be corrected, but look how we did in AFRINIC *always*:
> *in the meeting itself during the proposal presentation* not afterwards,
> not in the last-call. So, the consensus is determined *with those changes
> done*.
>
> Let's look this from a perspective of a country parliament doing laws. How
> it works?
> 1) The government or parties make a law proposal.
> 2) It is discussed, there may be different versions, some of them may be
> voted at some point, they may fail, new versions, etc., then the last one
> (our last-call) goes for voting to the plenary.
> 3) Once it is accepted, then *that text* and *only that text* goes to the
> official journal.
>
> If there is even a misspelling, it should be published as it was presented
> before the voting. CHANGES!
>
> Here we don't have voting, we have consensus, but the rest of the flow is
> the same.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
> @jordipalet
>
>
>
> El 21/10/20 16:02, "Sami Ait Ali Oulahcen via RPD" <rpd at afrinic.net>
> escribió:
>
>
>
> 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
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> 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
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20201021/e1541939/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list