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

[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