<div dir="auto">It has been a great debates on the issues consigning the internet resources.. And many more policies stated so far.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I therefore state that the PDWG should look in to the proposed policy and come up with a consolidated plan in others to reach and agreement.</div><div dir="auto">Thanks. </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, May 22, 2019, 1:24 PM <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: RPD Digest, Vol 152, Issue 50 (Ahile shagba francis)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 13:22:45 +0100<br>
From: Ahile shagba francis <<a href="mailto:ahilefranc@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ahilefranc@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 152, Issue 50<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAKpA-zH6Q13=<a href="mailto:wmVNG9-HPXE0Dx83YCW15dXiWEVM816bgbvVBQ@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">wmVNG9-HPXE0Dx83YCW15dXiWEVM816bgbvVBQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
I agree with a review that is not paving ways for any irregularities, a<br>
review that is transparent and intended to enhance effective utilization of<br>
resources and satisfaction of end users, but then you must agree with me<br>
that: 1. The end users stand the event of losing their network whereas they<br>
know not what is happening between the ISP and the regulators. 2. Such a<br>
policy should be well detailed 3.now reviews funded by external bodies<br>
don?t seem transparent as intended, as more chances of accusations unjustly<br>
made in terms of economic and political factors.<br>
<br>
Ahile Francis<br>
<br>
On May 20, 2019 8:25 PM, <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
><br>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
><br>
> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
><br>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
><br>
><br>
> Today's Topics:<br>
><br>
> 1. Re: inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy<br>
> Development Process Bis (Owen DeLong)<br>
> 2. Re: inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy<br>
> Development Process Bis (Owen DeLong)<br>
> 3. Re: inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy<br>
> Development Process Bis (JORDI PALET MARTINEZ)<br>
> 4. Re: Was - Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources review<br>
> by AFRINIC" informations update (Owen DeLong)<br>
><br>
><br>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 1<br>
> Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 10:46:52 -0700<br>
> From: Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">owen@delong.com</a>><br>
> To: Frank Habicht <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">geier@geier.ne.tz</a>><br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy<br>
> Development Process Bis<br>
> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:86E3C700-18AE-4A8E-9DDF-36D07912D8D3@delong.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">86E3C700-18AE-4A8E-9DDF-36D07912D8D3@delong.com</a>><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> > On May 18, 2019, at 5:05 AM, Frank Habicht <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">geier@geier.ne.tz</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi all,<br>
> ><br>
> > On 17/05/2019 21:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:<br>
> > ...> 3) The consensus is determined only in the meeting (there is no<br>
> >> timing for the discussion in the list) and consequently there is not<br>
> >> a way to determine consensus from the list.<br>
> ><br>
> > I read<br>
> > "At the end of meeting or after the adoption phase of a policy proposal,<br>
> > the Chairs will decide if the working group has reached consensus within<br>
> > 2 weeks."<br>
> > as meaning that the PDWG chairs have the possibility to do declare<br>
> > consensus in the meeting without asking the mailing list.<br>
> ><br>
> > And I don't like it.<br>
> > So much that I had to drop everything and voice my opposition to this<br>
> > proposed change.<br>
> ><br>
> > Please note: I also think that all the other points Jordi raises are<br>
> > very valid and important. But this one is a very big change. And as<br>
> > mentioned, I oppose.<br>
> ><br>
> > If someone wants my proposal for improvement of this one part:<br>
> > replace<br>
> > "At the end of meeting or after the adoption phase of a policy proposal,<br>
> > the Chairs will decide if the working group has reached consensus within<br>
> > 2 weeks."<br>
> ><br>
> > with<br>
> > "At the end of a meeting the chairs may pronounce their intentions, in<br>
> > case there are no further substation developments regarding this policy<br>
> > on the mailing list.<br>
><br>
> May I suggest that the word ?substantive? replace ?substation? in the<br>
> preceding<br>
> paragraph?<br>
><br>
> > A final review of the draft policy is initiated by the Working Group<br>
> > Chair(s) by sending an announcement to the Resource Policy Discussion<br>
> > mailing list, preferably as soon as possible after the Public Policy<br>
> > Meeting. The Last Call period shall be at least two weeks. The Working<br>
> > Group Chair(s) shall evaluate the feedback received during the Public<br>
> > Policy Meeting and during this period and decide whether consensus has<br>
> > been achieved.?<br>
><br>
> I support this proposed language. I would, however, like to augment it as<br>
> follows:<br>
><br>
> ?Any substantial objection to a proposal during this last call period must<br>
> be<br>
> fully and adequately addressed prior to a determination of consensus.?<br>
><br>
> Owen<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 2<br>
> Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 10:53:27 -0700<br>
> From: Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">owen@delong.com</a>><br>
> To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>><br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy<br>
> Development Process Bis<br>
> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:FD2C63F6-6BA2-4D6C-95B9-14FBA1AA2726@delong.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">FD2C63F6-6BA2-4D6C-95B9-14FBA1AA2726@delong.com</a>><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> > On May 18, 2019, at 6:16 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi Frank,<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ?El 18/5/19 14:11, "Frank Habicht" <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">geier@geier.ne.tz</a>> escribi?:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi all,<br>
> ><br>
> > On 17/05/2019 21:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:<br>
> > ...> 3) The consensus is determined only in the meeting (there is no<br>
> >> timing for the discussion in the list) and consequently there is not<br>
> >> a way to determine consensus from the list.<br>
> ><br>
> > I read<br>
> > "At the end of meeting or after the adoption phase of a policy<br>
> proposal,<br>
> > the Chairs will decide if the working group has reached consensus<br>
> within<br>
> > 2 weeks."<br>
> > as meaning that the PDWG chairs have the possibility to do declare<br>
> > consensus in the meeting without asking the mailing list.<br>
> ><br>
> > This was introduced after I suggested it, and it is very easy to<br>
> understand it. If the chairs need to decide in 2-minutes during the<br>
> meeting, it is more difficult to do a good work on that decision.<br>
><br>
> It?s really not? If there is actual consensus, it?s pretty clear.<br>
><br>
> If there?s any doubt, then a good rule of thumb is that is a pretty good<br>
> indication of a lack of consensus.<br>
><br>
> I?m not opposed to a last call period on the mailing list (in fact, I<br>
> strongly support it), but for many reasons other than the difficulty of<br>
> determining consensus in the meeting.<br>
><br>
> > This is related to my previous request that the PDP also explicitly<br>
> "count" the participants in the mailing list that can't come to meetings.<br>
> This makes a bit more complex to decide on the spot during the meeting.<br>
><br>
> Not really? It just requires the co-chairs to be up to date on the mailing<br>
> list comments coming into the meeting. Especially if there is a safety<br>
> valve in the form of a last call period? Comments which arrived late (just<br>
> before or during the meeting) can be considered during the last call period.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Owen<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 3<br>
> Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 18:04:04 +0000<br>
> From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <<a href="mailto:jordi.palet@consulintel.es" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">jordi.palet@consulintel.es</a>><br>
> To: Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">owen@delong.com</a>><br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] inputs on AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT-04 - Policy<br>
> Development Process Bis<br>
> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:07DFBB57-A493-491B-9888-49119C45EDC3@consulintel.es" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">07DFBB57-A493-491B-9888-49119C45EDC3@consulintel.es</a>><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"<br>
><br>
> Hi Owen,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ?El 20/5/19 17:53, "Owen DeLong" <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">owen@delong.com</a>> escribi?:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> > On May 18, 2019, at 6:16 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi Frank,<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ?El 18/5/19 14:11, "Frank Habicht" <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">geier@geier.ne.tz</a>> escribi?:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hi all,<br>
> ><br>
> > On 17/05/2019 21:06, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD wrote:<br>
> > ...> 3) The consensus is determined only in the meeting (there is<br>
> no<br>
> >> timing for the discussion in the list) and consequently there is not<br>
> >> a way to determine consensus from the list.<br>
> ><br>
> > I read<br>
> > "At the end of meeting or after the adoption phase of a policy<br>
> proposal,<br>
> > the Chairs will decide if the working group has reached consensus<br>
> within<br>
> > 2 weeks."<br>
> > as meaning that the PDWG chairs have the possibility to do declare<br>
> > consensus in the meeting without asking the mailing list.<br>
> ><br>
> > This was introduced after I suggested it, and it is very easy to<br>
> understand it. If the chairs need to decide in 2-minutes during the<br>
> meeting, it is more difficult to do a good work on that decision.<br>
><br>
> It?s really not? If there is actual consensus, it?s pretty clear.<br>
><br>
> If there?s any doubt, then a good rule of thumb is that is a pretty<br>
> good indication of a lack of consensus.<br>
><br>
> I?m not opposed to a last call period on the mailing list (in fact, I<br>
> strongly support it), but for many reasons other than the difficulty of<br>
> determining consensus in the meeting.<br>
><br>
> > This is related to my previous request that the PDP also explicitly<br>
> "count" the participants in the mailing list that can't come to meetings.<br>
> This makes a bit more complex to decide on the spot during the meeting.<br>
><br>
> Not really? It just requires the co-chairs to be up to date on the<br>
> mailing list comments coming into the meeting. Especially if there is a<br>
> safety valve in the form of a last call period? Comments which arrived late<br>
> (just before or during the meeting) can be considered during the last call<br>
> period.<br>
><br>
> The problem is that even during the meeting there can be emails in the<br>
> list, etc. So, the consensus determination needs to be fair with all the<br>
> comments. Furthermore, there is a lack of timing for the list vs the<br>
> meeting.<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Jordi<br>
><br>
> Owen<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> **********************************************<br>
> IPv4 is over<br>
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
> <a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a><br>
> The IPv6 Company<br>
><br>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or<br>
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of<br>
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized<br>
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this<br>
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly<br>
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the<br>
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or<br>
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including<br>
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal<br>
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this<br>
> communication and delete it.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Message: 4<br>
> Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 12:24:25 -0700<br>
> From: Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">owen@delong.com</a>><br>
> To: Gregoire EHOUMI <<a href="mailto:gregoire.ehoumi@yahoo.fr" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">gregoire.ehoumi@yahoo.fr</a>><br>
> Cc: Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Was - Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources<br>
> review by AFRINIC" informations update<br>
> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:FBDA97B0-DE02-458E-B24E-61C70524BA60@delong.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">FBDA97B0-DE02-458E-B24E-61C70524BA60@delong.com</a>><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
><br>
> Gregoire,<br>
><br>
> Your text below contains one flawed assumption? Namely that there _IS_<br>
> always consensus that the problem a proposal seeks to solve is actually a<br>
> problem.<br>
><br>
> In the case of the proposed resource review policy, for example, it?s<br>
> pretty clear that many of the people objecting to the proposal feel that it<br>
> solves a non-problem.<br>
><br>
> Now the proponents will jump up and down claiming that I?m opposing<br>
> AfriNIC dealing with fraud. Nothing could be further from the truth. I<br>
> entirely support the elimination of fraud through proper due process and<br>
> with good checks and balances. AfriNIC already has the ability to do that<br>
> with existing agreements. There is no need for additional policy to support<br>
> it.<br>
><br>
> Since the problem statement in the proposal is a non-problem, the proposal<br>
> is, IMHO, unnecessary and the only true remedy to that is to eliminate the<br>
> proposal.<br>
><br>
> Not every proposal must survive to adoption. Sometimes a proposal should,<br>
> in fact, be recognized as a bad idea.<br>
><br>
> I say this with a tremendous amount of experience. If you look at my<br>
> record in the ARIN region, you?ll see that I?ve made several proposals<br>
> which eventually ended up being abandoned?. Many with my concurrence on the<br>
> abandonment after gaining additional information through the discussion<br>
> process.<br>
><br>
> The problem we have here is that despite substantive and sustained<br>
> objections, actual proof that the RSA contains all the tools needed, and<br>
> documentation of how the existing policy in conjunction with the RSA allows<br>
> AfriNIC to do the needful, proposers still refuse to accept that this<br>
> proposal is unlikely to ever gain actual consensus (as opposed to<br>
> erroneously declared consensus previously achieved).<br>
><br>
> Hopefully authors will see that the proposal is gaining opposition rather<br>
> than support and finally let the community move on.<br>
><br>
> Owen<br>
><br>
><br>
> > On May 19, 2019, at 6:40 AM, Gregoire EHOUMI via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > Hello Jordi<br>
> ><br>
> > Each proposal follows its own lifecycle.<br>
> ><br>
> > By default, proposals attempting to solve real and delicate problems<br>
> never have easy life.<br>
> ><br>
> > They require long and tedious discussions, analysis and evaluations. The<br>
> soft landing policy was a good example. It took almost 3 years and 14<br>
> versions.<br>
> > <a href="https://www.afrinic.net/library/policies/697-ipv4-soft-landing-policy" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.afrinic.net/library/policies/697-ipv4-soft-landing-policy</a> <<br>
> <a href="https://www.afrinic.net/library/policies/697-ipv4-soft-landing-policy" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.afrinic.net/library/policies/697-ipv4-soft-landing-policy</a>><br>
> ><br>
> > I am sure you?ve seen this in other regions and at IETF.<br>
> ><br>
> > When everybody concurs to positive discussions, the process produces<br>
> good outcomes which are not necessary about passing proposals<br>
> ><br>
> > If I may quote your definition of consensus in the withdrawn proposal of<br>
> update to the PDP:<br>
> > <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/2018-gen-002-d1#proposal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/2018-gen-002-d1#proposal</a> <<br>
> <a href="https://afrinic.net/policy/2018-gen-002-d1#proposal" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://afrinic.net/policy/2018-gen-002-d1#proposal</a>><br>
> ><br>
> > #######<br>
> > 3.1.1 Definition of ?Consensus?<br>
> ><br>
> > Achieving ?consensus? does not mean that proposals are voted for and<br>
> against, nor that the number of ?yes's?, ?no's? and ?abstentions? ? or even<br>
> participants ? are counted, but that the proposal has been discussed not<br>
> only by its author(s) but also by other members of the community,<br>
> regardless of their number, and that, after a period of discussion, all<br>
> critical technical objections have been resolved.<br>
> ><br>
> > In general, this might coincide with a majority of members of the<br>
> community in favor of the proposal, and with those who are against the<br>
> proposal basing their objections on technical reasons as opposed to<br>
> ?subjective? reasons. In other words, low participation or participants who<br>
> disagree for reasons that are not openly explained should not be considered<br>
> a lack of consensus.<br>
> ><br>
> > Objections should not be measured by their number, but instead by their<br>
> nature and quality within the context of a given proposal. For example, a<br>
> member of the community whose opinion is against a proposal might receive<br>
> many ?emails? (virtual or real) in their support, yet the chairs might<br>
> consider that the opinion has already been addressed and technically<br>
> refuted during the debate; in this case, the chairs would ignore those<br>
> expressions of support against the proposal.<br>
> ><br>
> > For information purposes, the definition of ?consensus? used by the RIRs<br>
> and the IETF is actually that of ?rough consensus?, which allows better<br>
> clarifying the goal in this context, given that ?consensus? (Latin for<br>
> agreement) might be interpreted as ?agreed by all?? (unanimity). More<br>
> specifically, RFC7282, explains that ?Rough consensus is achieved when all<br>
> issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated<br>
> > ######<br>
> ><br>
> > PDP should lead discussions to clear and strong unresolved ?technical?<br>
> objections which motivate instigators and working group to withdraw a<br>
> proposal only, for the sake of getting more analysis, consultations, or<br>
> design a better solution to the problem being solved.<br>
> ><br>
> > Withdrawing proposal to seek collusion with conflicted parties or to<br>
> match opponents aspirations not publicly expressed is not good for the<br>
> community.<br>
> ><br>
> > We wait to engage on your magic solution.<br>
> ><br>
> > Hope this helps.<br>
> ><br>
> > --Gregoire<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> >> Le 13 mai 2019 ? 13:09, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>> a ?crit :<br>
> >><br>
> >> Hi Daniel,<br>
> >><br>
> >> I think if proposal authors (in general, not just this proposal) are<br>
> really looking for the good of the community, when there is such continued<br>
> opposition (taking this proposal as an example) after 3 years and they<br>
> aren?t able to clear it despite so many new versions, something need to be<br>
> understood in between-lines:<br>
> >> Either the community really don?t like it and this perception will not<br>
> change (at least at this time), or they are not capturing what should be<br>
> changed or updated to advance it.<br>
> >><br>
> >> So yes please, have some generosity with the community and have a rest<br>
> on this. Possibly the best way is withdrawing it, but alternatively a year<br>
> without updating it will be sufficient.<br>
> >><br>
> >> After some time, authors can come back. A new version with face-to-face<br>
> meeting discussions may be more helpful than the actual endless thread by<br>
> email.<br>
> >><br>
> >> I?ve done this myself a month ago with one of my proposals in RIPE. I<br>
> still believe I was right (so it was a really difficult decision), and it<br>
> was just a matter of wording in the actual policy text, which my proposal<br>
> was trying to solve, but the people were not happy *at this time* to<br>
> continue the discussion, and trying to force it will not help. I?m<br>
> convinced when time passes, I may decide to come back later, and may be<br>
> after a rest, it may go thru.<br>
> >><br>
> >> It is a personal authors decision, and I?m sure being smarter will help<br>
> more than trying to push harder.<br>
> >><br>
> >> In the next meeting I?m going to explain something *very relevant for<br>
> AFRINIC community* that may help authors of this proposal to provide an<br>
> *alternative version* with may better match the situation. Please, stay<br>
> tuned.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Regards,<br>
> >> Jordi<br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> El 13/5/19 18:50, "Daniel Yakmut" <<a href="mailto:yakmutd@googlemail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">yakmutd@googlemail.com</a> <mailto:<br>
> <a href="mailto:yakmutd@googlemail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">yakmutd@googlemail.com</a>>> escribi?:<br>
> >><br>
> >> Dear Jordi,<br>
> >><br>
> >> I feel that an approach as you described, could be prescribed for the<br>
> "Internet Number Resources review by AFRINIC" proposal. The authors could<br>
> give it a rest for now and allow time to either present an opportunity for<br>
> the community to see the importance of the proposal or someone someday<br>
> takes up the proposal polishes it, present it and it gets through.<br>
> Whichever of the paths the authors take, at the end of the day it will be a<br>
> win-win situation.<br>
> >><br>
> >> Simply,<br>
> >> Daniel<br>
> >><br>
> >>> Hi Mark,<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> While I don?t agree with this policy proposal, I think it is really<br>
> dangerous to stick in the PDP a way to avoid a policy to be submitted<br>
> ?again? during so much time.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> In addition to that, either same or different authors, may re-think a<br>
> given policy proposal, and sometimes, something that didn?t reached<br>
> consensus, despite different versions, can be accommodated, or just a short<br>
> period of time (example, 6 months, between two consecutive meetings),<br>
> either because market, technical, or ?happenings?, may change the view of<br>
> the community.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Let me give you one example.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> LACNIC has been discussing inter-RIR transfers for several years.<br>
> THREE different policy proposals have failed, even with different authors,<br>
> small differences among those proposals, etc.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> I was never part of the co-authors of those 3 proposals.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> About six months ago, noticing that NOT having this policy in the<br>
> region is damaging the region, I decided to propose it, asked for other<br>
> co-authors to participate in the list and in fact I proposed it also in<br>
> AFRINIC.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Last Tuesday this policy proposal was presented for a first time in<br>
> the LACNIC meeting, and it reached consensus, after a very successful<br>
> discussion in the list, which allowed to update the text in several<br>
> versions.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> I think this is the perfect example of why I will not avoid a proposal<br>
> to be submmited even if the discussions don?t draw a succesful discussion.<br>
> I may be as dangerous for the region as not getting progress in something<br>
> that may become an emergency.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> However, the chairs can decide to give a very short discussion time in<br>
> the meeting (for example just 10 minutes), to a policy proposal that<br>
> despite not reaching consensus, the authors are not bein able to evolve<br>
> with the inputs from the community. This is possible with the actual PDP,<br>
> nothing to be changed for that.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> Regards,<br>
> >>> Jordi<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> El 13/5/19 16:52, "Mark Elkins" <<a href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mje@posix.co.za</a> <mailto:<br>
> <a href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mje@posix.co.za</a>>> escribi?:<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> I think there should be a policy that states that any Policy that has<br>
> not gone to last call (successfully unchallenged) and is older than two<br>
> years must be withdrawn after the next meeting from the Policy Development<br>
> Process and can only be brought back after two years.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> This particular policy would be a great candidate!<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> On 2019/05/12 23:42, Owen DeLong wrote:<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>>> On May 12, 2019, at 12:30 , Benjamin Ledoh <<a href="mailto:benjamin.ledoh@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">benjamin.ledoh@gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:benjamin.ledoh@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">benjamin.ledoh@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> Dear Community,<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> Marcus asked simple questions to Melvin. I was expecting Melvin to<br>
> respond but as usual, Owen jumped with his blablabla. We all know that Owen<br>
> has no company in the Africa Region; he has no interest in this policy and<br>
> every time he is defend or support policy that could destroy Afrinic. It is<br>
> not a secret that he hates Afrinic and now is on mission (for a pay master<br>
> -- I stand to be corrected). The less I say, the better for this community.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> This is very very interesting?<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> It?s true that I?m no longer associated with a company that has any<br>
> operations in the AfriNIC region.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> I agree with you that the less you say, the better for this community.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> That?s pretty much where the truth of your statements ends.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> I have tremendous interest in this policy for the good of the region<br>
> and the good of the internet, both of which stand to be substantially<br>
> harmed by the policy for the multiple reasons I have previously outlined.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> I have never defended or supported policy which I believed could<br>
> destroy AfriNIC. Indeed, I am opposing this policy because I believe it<br>
> would be harmful to AfriNIC.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> I?m actually quite fond of AfriNIC and many of the people who work<br>
> there. I count much of the AfriNIC staff and many members of the community<br>
> as friends. I have no idea where you have come up with this idea that I<br>
> hate AfriNIC. I assure you that if I hated AfriNIC, the easiest thing for<br>
> me to do would be to turn a blind eye to this policy and walk away allowing<br>
> it to do the damage it will surely do if it is adopted. Indeed, I think if<br>
> you review my history, you will find I do not spend anywhere near this<br>
> level of effort to try and improve things that I hate.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> I also am not sure what you mean by ?on a mission for a pay master?.<br>
> Nobody is paying me to do this. It is true that I have received partial<br>
> expense sponsorship to attend some AfriNIC meetings from various sources.<br>
> It is true that I have done other consulting work for a variety of<br>
> organizations that are AfriNIC members. It is also true that no<br>
> organization or employer has ever been able to dictate the opinions I<br>
> express in any public policy forum. I?m quite certain that if you check<br>
> with any of my former employers, you?ll be easily able to confirm this fact.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>>> The pathetic aspect in this is the submission of Daniel. Brother<br>
> Dan, in Yoruba, there is a say: "You don't team up with opponents to<br>
> vandalize your family's property". To a wise, a word is enough.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Are you accusing me of vandalism, sir? If so, I would like to see you<br>
> back up that claim with some evidence or facts. Otherwise, it is an<br>
> inappropriate ad hominem attack which is not permitted by the list AUP. If<br>
> not, please explain yourself more clearly or make an appropriate apology.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>>> By the way, I am looking for sponsorship to travel to Kampala to<br>
> attend AIS. Can you be of help? Can you direct me to any foundation? I hope<br>
> you will take it cool. (LOL)<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> I am not sure if the Larus foundation is still taking applications<br>
> for Kampala or not. You could try there. I believe AfriNIC also has a<br>
> fellowship program, but I?m not sure when their application period closes,<br>
> either. I don?t know if there are other foundations out there offering<br>
> grants.<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> Owen<br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> Cheers<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> Benjiloh<br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>><br>
> >>>>> On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 6:03 PM Daniel Yakmut via RPD <<br>
> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
> >>>>>> Owen,<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> Indeed you gave the point blank solution to what I personally have<br>
> been advocating.<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> Cheers<br>
> >>>>>> Daniel<br>
> >>>>>><br>
> >>>>>> On Sun, May 12, 2019, 6:14 PM Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">owen@delong.com</a> <mailto:<br>
> <a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">owen@delong.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> On May 12, 2019, at 08:37 , Marcus K. G. Adomey <<br>
> <a href="mailto:madomey@hotmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">madomey@hotmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:madomey@hotmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">madomey@hotmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Melvin<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> I can see you suddenly have interests for the review policy<br>
> proposal. Please review RPD and PPMs archives as it is not productive<br>
> to replay old discussions.<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> Please could you provide answers to the following questions<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> > This policy has a lot of problems.<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> It is not constructive in a working group to just say policy has<br>
> a lot of problems without listing the problems you see. Please list all the<br>
> problems and propose texts to address them?<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> It is not legitimate to insist that those who feel your proposal<br>
> is flawed must provide text to address those problems. However, let me<br>
> propose text which would solve all of the problems with this policy so that<br>
> it cannot be said that I did not do so?<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> Please replace the entire proposal with the what is between the<br>
> BEGIN and END tags below. That will solve all of the problems:<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> ?? BEGIN ??<br>
> >>>>>>> ?? END ??<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> I think you must agree that this text is very succinct and does<br>
> not create any new policy problems like the current proposal.<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> While it may not solve all of the problems you intend with your<br>
> current problem statement, I believe it does, in fact, solve all of the<br>
> material defects of this proposal and offers a vastly superior policy<br>
> alternative. (In other words: current policy is a vastly superior policy<br>
> alternative to the current proposal).<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> > The other is the potential of end-users being disconnected due<br>
> to the review. I think we have to bear in mind that, end-users have no clue<br>
> about the review.<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> Please show which part of policy proposal requires disconnecting<br>
> end users? The numbers are requested and allocated to serve end-users and<br>
> I don't see how review will lead to disconnecting these users.<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> Marcus, are you truly so divorced from reality that you do not<br>
> understand that if you successfully and effectively revoke the resources of<br>
> an ISP that by definition, you have disconnected the customers of said ISP<br>
> that were using those resources?<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> If not, then I can only assume that you believe that any such<br>
> revocation will be without actual effect on the internet. If you truly<br>
> believe that, then you believe that it is OK to render the AfriNIC<br>
> registration process meaningless compared to operational practice and you<br>
> wish to create a separation between the two. I realize that currently the<br>
> two are joined only through the voluntary cooperation of ISPs, but I think<br>
> it is irresponsible at best to attempt to end that cooperation.<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> Owen<br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> From: Melvin Cheng <<a href="mailto:melvinc0730@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">melvinc0730@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<br>
> <a href="mailto:melvinc0730@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">melvinc0730@gmail.com</a>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 9:15 AM<br>
> >>>>>>>> To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> >>>>>>>> Subject: [rpd] RPD : Prolicy proposal "Internet Number Resources<br>
> review by AFRINIC" informations update<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> Hi<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> The debate over this policy has been for ages. I really think<br>
> that if an issue has been discussed over and over again, there must be<br>
> something fundamentally wrong about it. It?s quite obvious that this<br>
> proposal draws way more controversy than the others - its own existence in<br>
> a way seems to be a source of extreme disputes among the community, as we<br>
> have seen in Tunisia. I was in fact there myself.<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> This policy has a lot of problems. Intrinsically, as a policy<br>
> itself, it is not well defined. A lot of terms remain unclear. For example,<br>
> as Owen has also pointed out earlier, the term ?annual meaningful report?<br>
> is an ambiguous term. What is a ?meaningful? report? To whom? What are the<br>
> factors? How is ?meaningful? defined? 100 people can have 100 definitions<br>
> of ?meaningful?. If the report is deemed as something crucial to this<br>
> proposal, then the author shall better define and address it. Honestly<br>
> speaking, although this proposal has been ?re-proposed? over and over, I do<br>
> not see any improvements in it. More precisely, I barely see any changes<br>
> made in the new proposal when comparing to the previous one. I would expect<br>
> the authors to make some adjustments when so many issues have not been<br>
> addressed in previous meetings before they posted them again, even just as<br>
> gesture of their sincerity. You can?t just post something that?s almost<br>
> identical by pretending your audience were blind.<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> On the other hand, this policy is not realistic at all. Afrinic<br>
> does not have the financial power to conduct such a big quantity of reviews<br>
> within its regions. It?s quiet easy to imagine that because of this lack of<br>
> financial backup, reviews are done unfairly and unjustly. For example, some<br>
> users are screened while the others are not because Afrinic runs out of<br>
> money during the process of review. This may, at the worst, can lead to<br>
> Afrinic?s bankruptcy, which I am sure none of us would wish that to happen.<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> The other is the potential of end-users being disconnected due to<br>
> the review. I think we have to bear in mind that, end-users have no clue<br>
> about the review. However, according to this proposal, if an ISP is found<br>
> to have violated the rule (ie, inefficient utilisation of resources), their<br>
> IPs will be taken back by Afrinic and re-allocate to others. End-user will<br>
> lost connectivity to the Internet during this process even they have no<br>
> idea what is going on. This is unfair to them. After all, connectivity to<br>
> the Internet shall come as the priority over any other things. What this<br>
> policy will bring is quiet the opposite.<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> Having said so much, I think my stand is quite clear. This<br>
> proposal is not well drafted and the authors haven?t well considered its<br>
> potential problems. It?s impractical when considering Afrinic?s current<br>
> situation.<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> Let?s not forget about this. if something has been doubted by<br>
> people over and over again, there must be something wrong about it.<br>
> >>>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>>> Cheers<br>
> >>>>>>>> Melvin<br>
> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>>>>>>> RPD mailing list<br>
> >>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> >>>>>>>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a> <<br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
> >>>>>>><br>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>>>>>> RPD mailing list<br>
> >>>>>>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> >>>>>>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a> <<br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>>>>> RPD mailing list<br>
> >>>>>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> >>>>>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a> <<br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>><br>
> >>>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>>> RPD mailing list<br>
> >>>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> >>>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a> <<br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>>--<br>
> >>> Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mje@posix.co.za</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mje@posix.co.za" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mje@posix.co.za</a>> Tel: +27.128070590<br>
> Cell: +27.826010496<br>
> >>> For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: <a href="https://ftth.posix.co.za" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://ftth.posix.co.za</a><br>
> <<a href="https://ftth.posix.co.za/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://ftth.posix.co.za/</a>><br>
> >>> _______________________________________________ RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/</a><br>
> mailman/listinfo/rpd <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
> >>><br>
> >>> **********************************************<br>
> >>> IPv4 is over<br>
> >>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
> >>> <a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a> <<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com/</a>><br>
> >>> The IPv6 Company<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged<br>
> or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of<br>
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized<br>
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this<br>
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly<br>
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the<br>
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or<br>
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including<br>
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal<br>
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this<br>
> communication and delete it.<br>
> >>><br>
> >>> _______________________________________________<br>
> >>> RPD mailing list<br>
> >>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> >>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a> <<br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
> >><br>
> >><br>
> >> **********************************************<br>
> >> IPv4 is over<br>
> >> Are you ready for the new Internet ?<br>
> >> <a href="http://www.theipv6company.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com</a> <<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.theipv6company.com/</a>><br>
> >> The IPv6 Company<br>
> >><br>
> >> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or<br>
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of<br>
> the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized<br>
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this<br>
> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly<br>
> prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the<br>
> intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or<br>
> use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including<br>
> attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal<br>
> offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this<br>
> communication and delete it.<br>
> >><br>
> >> _______________________________________________<br>
> >> RPD mailing list<br>
> >> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
> >> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a> <<br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
> ><br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > RPD mailing list<br>
> > <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> > <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
><br>
> -------------- next part --------------<br>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
> URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/</a><br>
> 20190520/998eaac8/attachment.html><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> Subject: Digest Footer<br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
><br>
><br>
> ------------------------------<br>
><br>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 152, Issue 50<br>
> ************************************<br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190522/7f2ca802/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20190522/7f2ca802/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of RPD Digest, Vol 152, Issue 55<br>
************************************<br>
</blockquote></div>