Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 175, Issue 180
Sunday Ayuba
sundayayuba8 at gmail.com
Sun Apr 25 05:38:07 UTC 2021
Dear all,
I strongly believe that it is more reasonable to await the decision of the
appeal committee before further discussions. That's my option anyways.
Ayuba Sunday
On Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 9:30 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: APPEAL AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF CONSENSUS DECLARED BY
> THE POLICY LIAISON TEAM AND THE BOARD ON THE SELECTION OF PDWG
> CO-CHAIRS (sisoko daze)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2021 04:29:01 +0800
> From: sisoko daze <sisokodaze at gmail.com>
> To: Tom Ochang <dontommy24 at gmail.com>
> Cc: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] APPEAL AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF CONSENSUS
> DECLARED BY THE POLICY LIAISON TEAM AND THE BOARD ON THE SELECTION
> OF
> PDWG CO-CHAIRS
> Message-ID:
> <CAG8HHKzHxArWudYN6r9ksX6nzLeXctcLg=yVpK+WBiZY=
> ici0w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Yup,
>
> I agree. Just let the Appeal Committee do its part and let it have the
> final say. No need to even quarrel about it.
>
> But i think both sides need to tone down their taunts though(very
> meaningless, the way i see it), or better yet, just stop the taunts
> entirely.
>
> Reek out.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2021 at 1:11 AM Tom Ochang <dontommy24 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I can clearly see that some new members lack knowledge of The code of
> > conduct, and some old members have turned to e-bullies and have also
> > negated the code of conduct to join the younger members in mudslinging.
> > An appeal has been made let us wait for the AC to work and five their
> > comment on the subject matter. Thank you.
> >
> > Tom Ochang
> > Nigeria
> >
> > On Sat, 24 Apr 2021, 15:43 Taiwo Oye, <taiwo.oyewande88 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> ?
> >> AFRNIC never runs short of drama.
> >>
> >> - I think the appeal should be left with the committee than being
> debated
> >> here.
> >>
> >> - I think a few people who think they are old members of the community
> >> have a way of talking in an intimidating manner to scare off new
> members of
> >> the community. They might be new but they are not ?daft?.
> >>
> >> Noah can you kindly tune it down a bit. Sometimes it comes off as
> >> bullying.
> >>
> >> - I think some new members have stepped out of line by their response to
> >> the perceived attack on them. My advice is to keep to the african
> tradition
> >> of respecting your elders. And try to tap from the relevant experience
> they
> >> have to offer.
> >>
> >> - I think since an appeal has been presented against the chairs, the
> >> cochairs need to stop acting in that capacity until the appeal is
> >> concluded.
> >> This was made clear and stated severally during the last appeal.
> >>
> >> I might be wrong in my opinions. But that is what ?I think?
> >>
> >> Sisoko, can you kindly pass the popcorn.
> >>
> >>
> >> Kind regards
> >>
> >> Taiwo
> >>
> >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 13:50, Murungi Daniel via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> ?Dear Emem,
> >>
> >>
> >> Your arrogant and egotistical replies are proof of how childish and daft
> >> you really are. Worse, you even lack the wisdom to realize that you are
> >> displaying it full-on in public.
> >>
> >> News flash - there are people who will always be clever than you, know
> >> more than you and be better than you in many aspects. Sadly you don?t
> seem
> >> to have learned this life lesson. My advice to you would be to learn
> from
> >> them.
> >>
> >> Regarding your appeal, it is a waste of everybody?s time but since it
> has
> >> been lodged, am hopeful the appeal committee will see through the
> frivolous
> >> attempts by you and those with like feathers to sow chaos and subvert
> the
> >> proper working of the PDP.
> >>
> >> Check your self man - you seem to have the potential to be a solid
> >> contributor to this community. Do not let your pride, self importance
> and
> >> misguided attacks get in the way of that.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Murungi Daniel
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 12:22 PM, Emem William <dwizard65 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Jaco,
> >>
> >> I will advise that you and your misguided cohorts refrain from
> >> unnecessary rantings that is capable of heating up the mailing list.
> >>
> >> I submitted a request to the appeal committee; every rational fellow
> >> should be able to wait patiently for the committee's decision without
> >> trying to further complicate the issues on ground.
> >>
> >> One important thing that I sincerely want you to know is: *I have never
> >> made the mistake of arguing with persons for who's opinions I have no
> >> regards.*
> >>
> >> Have a nice weekend!
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Emem William.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021, 08:34 Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Emem,
> >>>
> >>> Please keep your derogatory for yourself. Your other email was in my
> >>> opinion also extremely out of line.
> >>>
> >>> I suggest you read the code of conduct and keep to that.
> >>>
> >>> My father has a saying he uses frequently, "the more things change, the
> >>> more they stay the same", combined with an Afrikaans saying (I'm sure
> there
> >>> are other variants in other languages) about "met grysheid kom
> wysheid" or
> >>> directly translated "with grey (hair) comes wisdom" which is to say
> "with
> >>> age comes wisdom".
> >>>
> >>> I agree the world is modern, and we need to adapt. But trust me, I
> >>> consider myself a young person (mid 30s), tried and tested is good.
> The
> >>> saying "nuwe besems vee skoon" or "new brooms sweep clean" certainly
> holds
> >>> water (value), but the broom had to be invented first. Do not forget
> the
> >>> journey that was taken to get where we are. Discount that and you're
> >>> throwing the baby (good, new) out with the bath water (dirty, no longer
> >>> usable).
> >>>
> >>> Please refer to my previous email, and if you can't deduce from that
> why
> >>> consensus is the technically more correct and better approach compared
> to
> >>> democracy _in_our_environment_, please re-read it a few more times,
> then
> >>> sleep on it. I'm not so sure democracy is the father of
> >>> multistakeholderism as you say, but I get why you're saying it - it's
> what
> >>> we're all being indoctrinated with from a young age, and up to a point
> >>> (meaning until you really sit and think about it, hard) it makes
> sense. I
> >>> don't need you to agree with me, but I would ask that you try to
> understand
> >>> and show some respect to your peers that came before you. I'm also
> very
> >>> new (5 years) in this community, and I can tell you this: Those that
> have
> >>> come before us certainly have some large shoes and broad shoulders.
> Show
> >>> them the respect they deserve, please. They've been around the block
> a few
> >>> times and better than any of us understand the pitfalls, and they have
> the
> >>> experience to be able to provide guidance and vision. To build. To
> >>> strengthen. So keep to your ideals, but learn from them.
> >>>
> >>> Now, instead of discussing philosophical politics and differences (not
> >>> to say it's not important to understand these), can we please get back
> to
> >>> discussing policy making? We are after all supposed to be the *Policy*
> >>> *D*evelopment *W*orking *G*roup.
> >>>
> >>> Kind Regards,
> >>> Jaco
> >>>
> >>> On 2021/04/23 21:08, Emem William wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Eddy,
> >>>
> >>> I would also like to suggest that you organise a webiner for some old
> >>> folks on how to handle things in a multistakeholder environment. I see
> the
> >>> need to enlighten them on the fact that a 'market' has many entrance.
> More
> >>> importantly you need to educate them that there are new and better
> ways of
> >>> doing things.
> >>>
> >>> They should not continue to live in thier old shadows because we are in
> >>> a modern world where all animals are now becoming equal. They need not
> >>> exhibit thier ignorance and think they can continue to dominate the
> others
> >>> and label them 'new'.
> >>>
> >>> More importantly, you need to teach them that in a land where there are
> >>> rules, the rules has to be followed; not an attempt circumvent the
> rules,
> >>> by old folks to cheat the younger ones all in the name of "*being
> old*".
> >>> It's not by age anymore. Probably Mark should suggest '*All animals
> >>> are equal, Face or No face'.*
> >>> This, I believe will restore the long lost sanity in AFRINIC.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Emem William
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021, 17:34 Noah <noah at neo.co.tz> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Eddy and Chair
> >>>>
> >>>> Can AfriNIC perhaps through the Stakeholder Engagement department
> >>>> increase its efforts on running quartely webinars for new members of
> our
> >>>> community. I have been reading emails in recent weeks from folks who I
> >>>> believe to be new members of the PDWG who could do with some capacity
> >>>> building.
> >>>>
> >>>> This will go on to reduce the level of ignorance among the new members
> >>>> of the community especially around the Policy Development Process.
> >>>>
> >>>> Some sort of orientation program similar to the one AfriNIC provides
> to
> >>>> its fellows each year who attended physical meetings but instead run
> it
> >>>> remotely via webinars.
> >>>>
> >>>> In my humble opinion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Noah
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021, 16:26 Fernando Frediani, <fhfrediani at gmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hello Jaco
> >>>>> Thanks for this excellent and necessary lesson.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Every time I see the word democracy trying to be used in PDWG I feel
> >>>>> the same lack of understanding by some.
> >>>>> Some need to understand that just by a certain number of people
> >>>>> voicing their wish for something isn't just enough to make something
> happen
> >>>>> as things are not decided by a majority of voices.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fernando
> >>>>> On 23/04/2021 09:56, Jaco Kroon wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Okoye,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think you're confusing the concept of democracy and a consensus
> >>>>> based approach.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In a democracy, the majority (or largest individual sub group) get
> >>>>> what they want, irrespective of whether it's right or wrong. The
> premise
> >>>>> behind a democracy is two-fold: those that we appointed will action
> in the
> >>>>> form of an autocracy that which they have pitched in their run-up
> (failure
> >>>>> to do so generally leads to unrest, and even if they follow exactly
> that if
> >>>>> it's not to the betterment of the larger group will at least be met
> with
> >>>>> resistance by the minority), and will stick to exactly that and not
> become
> >>>>> power hungry, and the larger believe is that the majority knows best
> and
> >>>>> are right in their believes. Of course this is an
> >>>>> idealogical/philosophical statement, for which there are many other
> >>>>> wordings, the base premise is: the majority rules, right or wrong.
> A
> >>>>> democracy only works if the elected leaders of the majority has the
> best
> >>>>> interests of community as a whole at heart, otherwise it becomes an
> >>>>> oppression of minority by the majority.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In a consensus based approach, it's more strict, the majority cannot
> >>>>> simply enforce their arbitrary will. But at the same time the
> minority can
> >>>>> get their way. It's about addressing problems in such a way that
> the right
> >>>>> thing will happen, irrespective of emotional influence and state of
> mind.
> >>>>> In some cases we can delegate to a democratic based decision (ie,
> vote) *if
> >>>>> we so choose*. As was the original proposal until I filed two
> motions:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. That we select two of the three eligible candididates (as per the
> >>>>> criteria that the group have conceded to which eliminated the other
> three
> >>>>> candidates, and AK based on the fact that he was the previously
> recalled
> >>>>> chair). AK subsequently pulled out leaving us with only two eligible
> >>>>> candidates, and based on no valid objections that was raised, they
> were
> >>>>> then on the basis of consensus elected.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. That the appointments are made for one and two years
> respectively,
> >>>>> but there were objections against this, so as I've got it this was
> >>>>> accepted, but this could still potentially be changed at the PPM
> such that
> >>>>> one term will end during the PPM and the other will run for a
> further year.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Against the first item there were (as far as I could tell) no valid
> >>>>> objections, just emotional outbursts, against the latter there were
> some
> >>>>> "this is a variation of the accepted CPM" which could be deemed to be
> >>>>> valid, and I also conceded that I've got no objection if this
> decision is
> >>>>> postponed to the PPM, but it does make things more difficult for the
> newly
> >>>>> elected chairs since their position going forward is unclear.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My request is thus in short to not confuse a democracy with a
> >>>>> consensus system(much more strict than a democracy since one person
> that
> >>>>> raises a *valid* objection against a proposal can stop the thousand,
> in
> >>>>> theory). But in the same sense, the thousand cannot stop the one
> unless
> >>>>> they can raise a valid objection.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The PDWG is not a democracy.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kind Regards,
> >>>>> Jaco
> >>>>> On 2021/04/23 14:12, Okoye Somtochukwu wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear Community,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In my opinion, I believe we should have a chance to appeal and
> contest
> >>>>> the boards' decisions on the selection of co-chairs. A democratic
> >>>>> government does not function when citizens are deprived of their
> right to
> >>>>> free speech, protests tec. in the same vein, we should also have a
> say in
> >>>>> appealing against the decision made by the board against the
> co-chairs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also, The appeal against the board on the selection of the co-chairs
> >>>>> is valid. Although it is only rational that we look into this issue
> and try
> >>>>> to assess the situation as it is. This is because, although the
> board has
> >>>>> acted in carrying out its duties and that of the co-chairs, I don't
> feel it
> >>>>> is right for the board to have a consensus regarding the selection
> of the
> >>>>> co-chairs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In all our doings, we must treat each other's duties and positions
> >>>>> with the utmost respect and do our best to move the community
> forward.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 23, 2021, at 1:57, Paschal Ochang <pascosoft at gmail.com>
> >>>>> <pascosoft at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ?Hello all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's very simple. Has an appeal been lunched ? The answer is yes. So
> >>>>> let the Appeal Committee do their job. It's simple.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 22, 2021, Haruna Umar Adoga <hartek66 at gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If we decide to proceed with the confirmation of the newly
> ?selected?
> >>>>>> Co-chairs, which some say were chosen based on a ?consensus? by the
> PDWG,
> >>>>>> it will be a step in the wrong direction.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I personally do not subscribe to the idea of wasting the community?s
> >>>>>> time on frivolous issues but an appeal has been made against the
> >>>>>> confirmation of the Co-chairs and it needs to be addressed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We cannot and should not keep supporting this narrative as PDWG
> >>>>>> members, that whenever someone or a group of persons question an
> >>>>>> act/decision that needs clarification, we tend to push things under
> the
> >>>>>> carpet intentionally by throwing all sorts of tantrums rather than
> facing
> >>>>>> the issues in an upright manner.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Haruna.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 9:30 AM Arnaud AMELINA <amelnaud at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> In the Spirit of Law, what is not authorised, is forbidden. Don't
> >>>>>>> fool people here please. An other waist of time to the Community
> . The
> >>>>>>> Co-chairs selection is over. Now we invite Co-chairs to take the
> place and
> >>>>>>> start working, in order to avoid such kind of waist of time.
> Please, let
> >>>>>>> move forward.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Arnaud
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Le jeu. 22 avr. 2021 ? 02:38, lucilla fornaro <
> >>>>>>> lucillafornarosawamoto at gmail.com> a ?crit :
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hello everyone,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> As we can all see, it is true that the CPM (3.5) openly mentions
> >>>>>>>> the appeal against the co-chairs, but it doesn?t forbid other
> forms of
> >>>>>>>> appeals. Furthermore, the appeal reports a serious matter that
> should be
> >>>>>>>> properly investigated. This is the only way to go through it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In particular, I believe that the declaration of the consensus by
> >>>>>>>> the Board of Directors goes beyond their authority.
> >>>>>>>> Therefore, I support this appeal.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Lucilla
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Il giorno mer 21 apr 2021 alle ore 14:18 Emem William <
> >>>>>>>> dwizard65 at gmail.com> ha scritto:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *Dear Appeal Committee,*
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Please check the attachment for our appeal.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *Subject : Appeal against the confirmation of consensus declared
> >>>>>>>>> by the Policy Liaison Team and the Board on the selection of
> PDWG Co-chairs*
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Appeal Committee,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I am appealing against the confirmation of consensus declared by
> >>>>>>>>> the AFRINIC team and the Board on the selection of PDWG
> Co-chairs, made on
> >>>>>>>>> the RPD mailing list, on April 9th and April 11th.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013018.html)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013052.html)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I consider that the actions of the Board of Directors to
> >>>>>>>>> self-declare consensus over the PDWG matter in selecting the new
> co-chairs
> >>>>>>>>> is done outside of their scope of power and prerogatives.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *Date of the appeal :* April 19th, 2021
> >>>>>>>>> *Date of the decision made by the Policy Liaison Team*
> >>>>>>>>> (1) 3rd April 2021
> >>>>>>>>> (2) 9th April 2021
> >>>>>>>>> *Date of the decision made by the Board of Directors*
> >>>>>>>>> 11th April 2021
> >>>>>>>>> *f) Reference to an announcement of decision which is being
> >>>>>>>>> appealed*
> >>>>>>>>> (1) 26th March 2021, Eligibility criteria imposed by Policy
> >>>>>>>>> Liaison Team
> >>>>>>>>> (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/012768.html)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (2) 9th April 2021, Policy Liaison Team announced consensus is
> >>>>>>>>> achieved
> >>>>>>>>> (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013018.html)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> (3) 11th April 2021, Board Chair declared consensus
> >>>>>>>>> (https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2021/013052.html)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *Name and email address of complainant.*
> >>>>>>>>> Emem William
> >>>>>>>>> dwizard65 at gmail.com
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *Names of complainants.*
> >>>>>>>>> 1. Olamide Andu (olamideandu at gmail.com)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2. Yusuf Abdurahman Adebisi (adebc007 at gmail.com)
> >>>>>>>>> 3. Emem Ekpo William (dwizard65 at gmail.com)
> >>>>>>>>> 4. Sunday Ayuba (sundayayuba8 at gmail.com)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The following appeal addresses the ?fake consensus on the
> >>>>>>>>> selection of the co-chairs? declaration, which according to the
> CPM, cannot
> >>>>>>>>> be done by anyone else besides the chair. Yes In this situation
> we agreed
> >>>>>>>>> that AFRINIC team should serve as secretariat but this team went
> ahead to
> >>>>>>>>> selectively implement decisions even when there was no
> consensus. The
> >>>>>>>>> board?s interference with the matter signifies that the bottom
> up process
> >>>>>>>>> no longer exists. Therefore, this appeal should serve the Appeal
> Committee
> >>>>>>>>> in taking into account a very important point, which is the fact
> that the
> >>>>>>>>> board has no right in declaring consensus.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Based on the Board?s action of declaring consensus on the
> >>>>>>>>> selection of the co-chairs, which is done outside of their
> prerogatives, it
> >>>>>>>>> is safe to conclude that the declaration of consensus is illegal
> as it is
> >>>>>>>>> not within the prescribed power and prerogatives of the Board of
> Directors.
> >>>>>>>>> The Board of Directors should have referred to and comply with
> the
> >>>>>>>>> stipulated terms of the AFRINIC?s constitution and the CPM and
> ensure that
> >>>>>>>>> any action that is taken by the Board of Directors is done
> consistently and
> >>>>>>>>> in compliance with the stipulated terms of the AFRINIC?s
> Constitution and
> >>>>>>>>> the CPM, which was not the case. The declaration of the
> consensus by the
> >>>>>>>>> Board of Directors shows that the Board of Directors have acted
> above and
> >>>>>>>>> beyond their prescribed power and prerogatives.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As for the list of requirements and qualifications imposed by the
> >>>>>>>>> Policy Liaison Team, It is vital to note that they were never
> stipulated
> >>>>>>>>> under the CPM. By simply adding on a list of requirement and
> qualification
> >>>>>>>>> proves that the Policy Liaison Team have acted arbitrarily and
> with blatant
> >>>>>>>>> disregard to the terms and procedures which are clearly
> stipulated under
> >>>>>>>>> the CPM.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Based on the above, I urge the Appeal committee to look into this
> >>>>>>>>> serious matter and resolve this appeal by standing with what is
> right.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> *Emem William*.
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Paschal.
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> RPD mailing list
> >>>>> RPD at afrinic.net
> >>>>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://
> lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> RPD mailing listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://
> 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 listRPD at afrinic.nethttps://
> 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
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210425/766b65c5/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 175, Issue 180
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20210425/da54b5cc/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list