Search RPD Archives
[rpd] REPORT ON Appeal against the non-consensus determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space ? Draft 2).
Kakel Mbumb
kakelmbumb at gmail.com
Fri Jan 29 14:06:50 UTC 2021
Bonjour à tous, je pense qu'il ya des arguments dans les éléments soulevés
par Anthony nécessitant une réflexion profonde afin d'élaguer certaines
zones d'ombre.
S'il ne considère pas l'ASO comme un opt-in service mais plutôt une
obligation incontournable à tous dans le RPKI, on devrait le convaincre de
mieux appréhender cela avec des meilleures approches techniques et
pédagogiques.
Les tensions ne peuvent uniquement servir en ce temps ci car un certain
consensus légitime doit être atteint.
Y'a-t-il dans la proposition un élément mentionné qui l'induit à penser de
la sorte pour considérer qu'il ne s'agit par d'un service au choix à
exploiter mais d'une obligation ?
Trouvons la possibilité de demeurer cohérent et logique de sorte à aligner
les argumentaires dans l'élévation de notre mission.
Cordialement.
Le mer. 27 janv. 2021 à 17:21, <rpd-request at afrinic.net> a écrit :
> 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: REPORT ON Appeal against the non-consensus determination
> on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated
> and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space ? Draft 2). (Anthony Ubah)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:47:59 +0100
> From: Anthony Ubah <ubah.tonyiyke at gmail.com>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] REPORT ON Appeal against the non-consensus
> determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI ROAs for
> Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space ? Draft 2).
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAHcb0ATzeB3DHJqr9qV6fDKdWFUSoEmCSx9UDhy4uAFCGPx++g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello Jordi,
>
> This is not an opt-in service; this is created as an additional element in
> the RPKI service and forcefully asks the operator (who accepts the RPKI) to
> accept it. Taking RPKI as an opt-in service, and claiming the element you
> have added here, are already part of that opt-in service. When the operator
> accepts it then, it would be misguiding as they may not admit such
> additional elements. However, they have no choice if this policy passes, so
> this is a valid objection and a critical one.
>
> The very fundamental principle which I believe you fail to understand (and
> the most crucial objection) is that we do not want to get AFRINIC involved
> in routing. This is an ideological difference, and this is no way to
> address it.
>
> *This is the very first policy to ask an RIR to proactively inject data
> into routing (something that was never done before), and this also goes
> beyond what we believe an RIR should be, simply offering a registration
> service, and if you think otherwise, that is entirely up to you. This would
> then constitute an ideological difference, and there is no acceptable way
> you can address it. This is also why this policy does not have consensus
> because forcing an ideology on others that fundamentally disagree with you
> is not how PDP works, regardless of how many appeals filed. Lastly, an
> ideological difference is the very definition of nonconsensus.*
>
>
> *Best Regards,*
>
> *UBAH ANTHONY *
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 4:49 PM <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: REPORT ON Appeal against the non-consensus determination
> > on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI ROAs for Unallocated
> > and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space ? Draft 2).
> > (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 16:48:18 +0100
> > From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel.es>
> > To: <rpd at afrinic.net>
> > Subject: Re: [rpd] REPORT ON Appeal against the non-consensus
> > determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI ROAs
> for
> > Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space ? Draft 2).
> > Message-ID: <5192313B-D19C-4CF9-8D9A-423C0EC8C0C8 at consulintel.es>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Hi Fernando,
> >
> >
> >
> > Let me explain how I see it.
> >
> >
> > The PDP is not a vote, and all the processes related to the PDP must
> > follow the same way.
> > The co-chairs need to follow consensus also among them: If a proposal had
> > objections and they?ve been addressed: there is no way for any of the
> > co-chairs to disagree on that. If that happens, the co-chairs are doing a
> > very bad job, because they need to, during the discussion, follow it, and
> > ensure that an objection is:
> > It is clearly invalid (it is a personal viewpoint or hast not been
> > justified, or clearly is untrue or is a lack of understanding or
> knowledge)
> > Has been addressed by the authors (or other community members),
> > Has not been addressed, so it is valid. And in this case, they should
> > ensure that the authors or someone else in the community has the
> > opportunity to address it.
> > Consequently, if a co-chair disagrees with the other one, they need to
> > clarify among themselves or ask for further clarification to the
> community,
> > authors, etc. There is no need that both co-chairs ?agree?, if one of the
> > co-chairs can see the objection as addressed
> > The Appeal Committee must review if the co-chairs did the job correctly
> in
> > 2 above. For that, doesn?t matter if (in the case of 5 AC members) 4 of
> > them believe an objection was invalid if only one of them can see that
> the
> > objection it has been addressed: exactly the same as the community and
> the
> > co-chairs.
> >
> >
> > I fully understand that this is not so easy! But any policy proposal can
> > be broken in as many parts as objections raised and then resolved one by
> > one.
> >
> >
> >
> > Let?s take an example with this proposal. Each objection is a different
> > problem and each one should be addressed. Let?s take the first one:
> >
> >
> > Allowing resource holders to create AS0/ ROA will lead to an increase of
> > even more invalid prefixes in the routing table?
> >
> >
> > If you look at the RFC6483, section 4 (?A ROA with a subject of AS 0 (AS
> 0
> > ROA) is an attestation by the holder of a prefix that the prefix
> described
> > in the ROA, and any more specific prefix, should not be used in a routing
> > context?) resource holders, as part of the RPKI system already can and
> > actually do this (example IXPs), in fact they do. This has been explained
> > several times, including my presentation at the PPM. The proposal is just
> > adding light about actual facts regarding this aspect, not changing
> > anything, so it can?t be a valid objection for the policy proposal.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is no way that *any* of the co-chairs disagree with this. If they
> > disagree, they should ask to staff or experts, it shows lack of knowledge
> > stating that objection. Even if one co-chair agrees and the other
> disagree,
> > it is still an invalid objection and the co-chair that has no knowledge
> > must *consent* this is the meaning of consensus.
> >
> >
> >
> > If the co-chairs still insist that this objection is valid, then the
> > Appeal Committee does the same exercise. It is a valid objection? If only
> > one of the AC has the knowledge to understand this, it is sufficient to
> > make it an invalid objection. The others must *consent* (again, meaning
> of
> > consensus).
> >
> >
> >
> > Consensus is about only considering acceptable (or valid) those
> objections
> > that nobody can address.
> >
> >
> >
> > If the AC makes it based in majority, IT IS NO LONGER CONSENSUS, and
> > basically it is basing the decision on the expertise of the different AC
> > members, personal opinions, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jordi
> >
> > @jordipalet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El 26/1/21 15:03, "Fernando Frediani" <fhfrediani at gmail.com> escribi?:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello Jordi
> >
> > I think that was a very good and detailed email.
> > There is however one point I differ on you: the decision taken by the AC
> > should be based on majority of votes of the members. Obviously they must
> > not take decisions based on personal opinions of the merit of the
> proposal
> > but on the facts and if all issues have been resolved.
> > Regarding the decisions between the 2 Co-Chairs I don't think the
> > consensus model applies there simply because there is not how to have a
> > consensus model applied between 2 persons. Either they both agree on
> > something or that cannot advance.
> >
> > In resume: The consensus evaluation between 2 Co-Chair require both to
> > agree there was consensus. The consensus evaluation or analysis if the
> > Co-Chairs committed a mistake between all members of the AC is done via
> > majority and in this last case that doesn't exclude the eventual
> necessity
> > of explaining in details how every evaluation was taken for transparency
> > proposes. The consensus model applies only the community while the
> > proposals are being discussed and issues are being addressed.
> >
> > Regards
> > Fernando
> >
> > On 26/01/2021 07:50, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:
> >
> > Hi Wafa, all,
> >
> >
> >
> > First of all, don?t take anything that I say personally, but in general I
> > see a total failure of the Appeal Committee and lack of compliance with
> the
> > PDP.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your judgment must be on the grounds of a correct decision of the chairs.
> >
> >
> >
> > In taking such decision the Appeal Committee must be based on facts,
> never
> > on personal opinions (from the community or the chairs or the Appeal
> > Committee itself). Being based on objective facts means checking if what
> > the policy proposal said, what were the objections, and if those
> objections
> > *are real*, not just ?illusions? or ?lack of knowledge? or ?untrue? or
> > ?personal preferences?.
> >
> >
> >
> > If the Appeal Committee doesn?t have the right knowledge, as I already
> > said I believe was the reason the chairs took the wrong decision, then
> they
> > should ask for help to the staff or third parties.
> >
> >
> >
> > Any objection to a policy proposal must be duly justified and that
> > justification not addressed by the authors or other community members.
> >
> >
> >
> > Any policy proposal that has objections, the objections MUST BE VALID,
> > even if the objections come from 99% of the community. This is not
> > democracy, is not number of votes or voices, is based on non-addressed
> > objections. It is not based on untrue objections. None of the objections
> to
> > this policy proposal were valid. They are mostly based on lack of
> > sufficient knowledge, and never lack of knowledge can be a VALID reason.
> > Again, not only the authors, but many other expert community members have
> > confirmed that those objections are invalid.
> >
> >
> >
> > A policy proposal never can be based in ?I don?t like it?. You need to
> > state ?I don?t like it because it breaks this RFC? (for example). And
> even
> > in that cases authors can respond showing why the perception of ?breaking
> > this RFC? is wrong (so addressing the objection will nullify it).
> Policies
> > are not based on personal preferences, but in what is the best
> *technically
> > correct choice* for the community.
> >
> >
> >
> > Last but not least, the Appeal Committee seems to be working as a
> > democratic body, which is wrong. ALL THE PDP is based in consensus
> > approach. The Appeal Committee must also follow that approach, otherwise,
> > it is breaking the ICP-2, which is the higher mandate of how the policy
> > making process works. If 3 members of the Appeal Committee believe that
> the
> > opposition was correct, they should *demonstrate with facts why* and this
> > must be done using the responses provided by the authors and community to
> > those objections.
> >
> >
> >
> > If 3 members of the Appeal Committee believe that any of the objections
> > has not been addressed, they need to *demonstrate why*, taking in
> > consideration the community and author responses, and those must be
> crystal
> > clear in the report, which is not the case.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Appeal Committee must respond to the authors, in a consensus based
> > approach, not a democratic one to all what the authors confirmed in the
> > Appeal Document.
> >
> >
> >
> > Note also that there is a paragraph in the Appeal Report that completely
> > kills the PDP and demonstrates that the Appeal Committee HAS NOT
> UNDERSTOOD
> > THEIR JOB AT ALL:
> >
> >
> >
> > ?The 3 members who observed significant opposition to the policy,
> however,
> > also observed that it is the PDWG that builds consensus and decides
> whether
> > issues of opposition are addressed to the satisfaction of the PDWG which
> is
> > where the PDP requires that consensus is assessed by the Co-Chairs.?
> >
> >
> >
> > The PDP states clearly that the Appeal Committee need to review the
> chairs
> > decision. If the chairs have considered as VALID objections that
> > OBJECTIVELY ARE INVALID, it is clear that the Appeal Committee must
> declare
> > the lack of consensus declaration is invalid, and consequently, the
> > proposal reached consensus.
> >
> >
> >
> > Let?s go the details and I ask the Appeal Committee to respond to each of
> > the objections included and refuted in the Appeal Document:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1. ?a. Allowing resource holders to create AS0/ ROA will lead to an
> > increase of even more invalid prefixes in the routing table?
> >
> > Following RFC6483, section 4 (?A ROA with a subject of AS 0 (AS 0 ROA) is
> > an attestation by the holder of a prefix that the prefix described in the
> > ROA, and any more specific prefix, should not be used in a routing
> > context?) resource holders, as part of the RPKI system already can and
> > actually do this (example IXPs), in fact they do. This has been explained
> > several times, including my presentation at the PPM. The proposal is just
> > adding light about actual facts regarding this aspect, not changing
> > anything, so it can?t be a valid objection for the policy proposal.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2. ?b. Revocation time of AS0 state, and the time for new
> allocation
> > doesn?t match?
> >
> > This is not true, again a misunderstanding about how RPKI works. The
> > authors and other several community experts have discussed this in the
> > list. If you get number resources from AFRINIC, normally you don?t
> announce
> > them in minutes, or hours, or even days. There is some work to do in your
> > network, you need to do changes in systems and routers, and this takes
> > hours, and normally you can?t ?touch? systems during the day, but only in
> > ?maintenance windows? in the night. That means that if AFRINIC revokes an
> > AS0 certificate, it will be done in a few minutes during the day. So even
> > if the worldwide caches take hours to see that, there is no negative
> impact.
> >
> >
> >
> > In addition to that, this it can be improved thru implementation, as I
> > already explained also in the list. The staff could tentatively release
> > from the AS0 the resources that they plan to allocate once a week or
> every
> > couple of days, etc. For example, when they are processing a request, and
> > they are pending on final documentation, the RSA signature for new
> members,
> > or the review with the member of the justified need. Many other examples
> > can be provided about how to do it. The proposal doesn?t go into any of
> > those details, because the understanding is that those are too depth
> > operational, and in fact the staff could decide an approach during the
> > implementation, and based on experience improve it afterwards.
> >
> >
> >
> > The conclusion is that there is no such ?matching?, neither ?unmatching?,
> > so this can?t be taken as a valid objection for the proposal.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3. ?c. Other RIRs don?t have a similar the policy therefore, it can
> > not be effective?
> >
> > All the policies have different discussions in different RIRs at
> different
> > times. This policy is already available (reached consensus and
> implemented)
> > in APNIC and LACNIC (reached consensus, being implemented). There is work
> > being done in ARIN and RIPE (the first proposal was not accepted), not
> yet
> > public. So, this is untrue if you look at all the RIRs.
> >
> >
> >
> > The effectivity of a policy is not only related to how many RIRs
> implement
> > it. In this case, any RIR having this policy is actually stronger than
> the
> > other RIRs not having it, in terms of routing security. It shows the
> > commitment of that RIR about the RPKI usage with all its possibilities.
> It
> > facilitates the operators in the region and outside the region to
> identify
> > in a simpler and automated way, what prefixes should not be in the
> routing
> > tables and consequently allow them in an opt-in basis, to discard them.
> So,
> > it is in the other way around, any RIR with this policy could be said
> that
> > it is more ?effective? (even if it is not probably the right wording for
> > this topic) that the others. We should rather say that ?a RIR with this
> > policy is offering a more secure view of their routing information?.
> >
> >
> >
> > In addition to that, there are policies in AFRINIC which aren?t available
> > in other RIRs. That, clearly, doesn?t make them invalid (or in other
> words,
> > this is an invalid objection ? is good that all RIRs do the same, but is
> > not always the case, or not at the same time), clearly this shows that
> this
> > can?t be taken as a valid objection against this policy proposal.
> >
> >
> >
> > 4. ?d. This will become a uniform policy if it is not globally
> > implemented, which causes additional stress?
> >
> > This is almost a duplicate of the previous one. Absolutely not. We can
> add
> > that the way we suggest the staff, and they confirmed, with an
> independent
> > TAL protects, as intended by the proposal, the resources of the RIR
> > implementing it, not creating any issues in what is done in other RIRs to
> > any operator, so it can?t be taken as a valid objection against this
> policy
> > proposal.
> >
> >
> >
> > It is difficult to understand what it means ?additional stress? in this
> > context, but clearly, it will be in the other way around. As more RIRs
> > implement it, less manual work in terms of filtering, is needed to be
> done
> > by operators, if they opt to use the AS0 ROA service from the RIRs that
> > have implemented it. So, it is not correct and thus, not a valid
> objection.
> >
> >
> >
> > If the question is about if this policy should be a Global Policy, the
> > response has also been provided in the discussion. Ideally, a Global
> Policy
> > will be only able to protect the IANA unallocated resources, but not the
> > resources that IANA already allocated to each RIR. In fact, I?m already
> > working (when time permits it will be made public) in a Global Policy for
> > that, but this is irrelevant versus having a policy at every RIR (or a
> few
> > of them), so again, objectively not a valid objection.
> >
> >
> >
> > 5. ?e. Validity period: if members decide to implement it, is it
> > not better to recover the space if it is kept unused for too long??
> >
> > This doesn?t make sense, at least not as worded. This is not about
> > recovering space, no relation. It is the unused space hold by AFRINIC,
> > regardless of if it was never allocated/assigned, returned by members, or
> > recovered by AFRINIC. Once more, not a valid objection.
> >
> >
> >
> > 6. ?f. How do we revoke the ROA? How long does it take to revoke it
> > (chain/ refreshing )??
> >
> > This looks the same as 2.2 above. It doesn?t matter in practice, if it
> > takes minutes or hours or even days. Community and staff provided some
> > facts about this, just to cite a couple of them:
> >
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011335.html
> >
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2020/011348.html
> >
> >
> >
> > 7. ?g. What happens if AFRINIC accidentally issues a ROA for an
> > address in error??
> >
> > What happens if AFRINIC accidentally issues a ROA without an address
> > already allocated to members?
> >
> >
> >
> > Exactly the same if the existing RPKI fails, and that?s why there are
> > monitoring systems in place and as reported by the staff impact analysis,
> > this proposal will ensure that the monitoring is improved, so it is
> > actually helping on the right direction, not in the other way around.
> >
> >
> >
> > Further to that, because the systems of operators have caches, it is all
> > depending (for the existing TAL and for the new one implemented with this
> > proposal) on how much time it takes to AFRINIC to resolve the error and
> the
> > specific configuration of the operators and if they actually drop invalid
> > prefixes or they only create alerts, trigger some processes, etc. Note
> that
> > RPKI doesn?t force the operators to drop the prefixes even if they are
> > using RPKI, there are different ways to take advantage of this.
> >
> >
> >
> > This proposal doesn't change that, it is provided as an opt-in service
> and
> > consequently it is not a valid objection.
> >
> >
> >
> > 8. ?h. It also might affect the neighbours and involves monitoring
> > of unallocated spaces?
> >
> > It is not clear if neighbours here is referring to BGP peering ones.
> >
> >
> >
> > The same monitoring that right now is done AFRINIC for
> > unallocated/unassigned spaces could be improved with this proposal.
> AFRINIC
> > already, today, needs to make sure that they get alerts if
> > unallocated/unassigned space appears in the routing tables, because that
> > may imply that a member may be violating the RSA, bylaws, policies, etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > Exactly the same as for operators connected to Internet with BGP. The
> > proposal allows them, as an opt-in service, to improve if they wish, the
> > automation of all that, and to use the service in the way they decide.
> The
> > proposal is not forcing operators any specific usage for the service, it
> is
> > entirely at their own decision/discretion.
> >
> >
> >
> > This proposal ensures that the service is improved so, hijacking of
> unused
> > space is less prone to occur, that?s the purpose of the proposal and
> RPKI,
> > increase the routing security, without making it mandatory for any
> > operator. Consequently, once more, this can?t be considered a valid
> > objection.
> >
> >
> >
> > 9. ?i. Possibility of it being used against a member who is yet to
> > pay dues?
> >
> > According to AFRINIC bylaws and RSA, AFRINIC has the obligation to avoid
> > members not paying to stop using the resources, so they are available to
> > other members.
> >
> >
> >
> > It will be unfair and discriminatory to other members not doing so, and
> > that?s the reason, even if we don?t have this proposal, AFRINIC could at
> > any time, following the bylaws and RSA, do whatever actions, including
> > legal and technical ones, to make sure that unallocated, or unassigned,
> or
> > returned, or recovered resources are not used. As part of those actions,
> > AFRINIC could even ask in courts to stop routing those resources, even to
> > other operators. It is AFRINIC duty, practically will probably not make
> > sense in terms of the cost (unless a major hijacking of AFRINIC resources
> > occurs). Most probably just the cooperation among operators, without any
> > legal requirement, will make that happen. So, this proposal doesn?t
> change
> > that in the sense of adding to AFRINIC any new prerogative because
> already
> > have that right and duty regarding the responsible use of the resources
> > only to the allocated/assigned parties and in compliance with the legal
> > bindings.
> >
> >
> >
> > To further explain this, if a member decides to stop paying, AFRINIC,
> > following legal bindings, will follow a procedure to try to fix it, and
> if
> > it doesn?t succeed, will remove whois data (which in turn will cause the
> > removal of route objects that depend on them), RDNS (which means the
> > address space becomes in general unusable), etc.
> >
> >
> >
> > Clearly, once more, this can?t be considered a valid objection, on the
> > other way around is a fundamental AFRINIC?s right and duty.
> >
> >
> >
> > I urge you to respond to each of those objections, accepted by the chairs
> > to declare the lack of consensus, that the authors and other community
> > members DEMONSTRATED with OBJECTIVE information, are invalid.
> >
> >
> >
> > Again, please, Appeal Committee members, respond OBJECTIVELY AND BASED ON
> > FACTS, NOT PERSONAL PREFERENCES. The report MUST contain detailed
> > demonstration of why the Appeal Committee (not individual members) say
> each
> > of those objections has not been addressed, while the authors and
> community
> > believe otherwise.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is what we expect from an Appeal Committee, to OBJECTIVELY review
> > what the chairs objserved, when the Appeal Document clearly demonstrated
> > that it is invalid and consequently the chairs took a wrong decision,
> based
> > on personal preferences of community members or lack of knowledge, or
> other
> > not objective or untrue facts.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jordi
> >
> > @jordipalet
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El 22/1/21 13:59, "wafa Dahmani" <wafatn7604 at gmail.com> escribi?:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Community,
> >
> >
> >
> > This is to inform you that the Report on Appeal against the non-consensus
> > determination on proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-006-DRAFT02 (RPKI ROAs for
> > Unallocated and Unassigned AFRINIC Address Space ? Draft 2) and the
> minutes
> > have been published following the links below:
> >
> >
> >
> > https://afrinic.net/ast/pdf/policy/20210121-rpki-roa-appeal-report.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> > https://afrinic.net/policy/appeal-committee#appeals
> >
> >
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> > Wafa Dahmani
> >
> > Chair of the Appeal Committee
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ 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
> > _______________________________________________ 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.
> >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> >
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210126/10431eb4/attachment.html
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > RPD at afrinic.net
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of RPD Digest, Vol 172, Issue 12
> > ************************************
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210127/43f2b8ed/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 172, Issue 13
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210129/cb986e11/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list