<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">I don’t see the correlation. This is a small debate over how exactly to address the issues while staying as close<div class="">to the procedures in the CPM as possible. It’s not a big deal or anything sufficient to justify cancelling the online</div><div class="">meeting or delaying it for an unknown period of time.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Jul 21, 2020, at 07:19 , Paclab <<a href="mailto:ezekielj20@gmail.com" class="">ezekielj20@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">I forsaw this happening, that's why I was insisting on the cancellation on online meeting till the pandemic is over<br class=""></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 6:59 AM <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" class="">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br class="">
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<br class="">
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br class="">
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br class="">
<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<br class="">
You can reach the person managing the list at<br class="">
<a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<br class="">
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br class="">
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Today's Topics:<br class="">
<br class="">
1. Re: Co-Chair Election Process (Fernando Frediani)<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br class="">
<br class="">
Message: 1<br class="">
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 09:58:31 -0300<br class="">
From: Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>><br class="">
To: "rpd >> AfriNIC Resource Policy" <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br class="">
Subject: Re: [rpd] Co-Chair Election Process<br class="">
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:2606ca05-56e7-38d3-7168-819f7db79b09@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">2606ca05-56e7-38d3-7168-819f7db79b09@gmail.com</a>><br class="">
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"<br class="">
<br class="">
On 21/07/2020 02:06, Owen DeLong wrote:<br class="">
> Yes, but that proposal could be to vary the chair election process <br class="">
> just as much as to vary anything else in the document.<br class="">
<br class="">
Yes, as long it is conducted under a policy proposal discussion <br class="">
following 3.6 no problem at all.<br class="">
<br class="">
Now the main problem I guess is to reach consensus on something as many <br class="">
people seem too afraid of anything. So why I suggested something <br class="">
strictly simple that resolves the current scenario, even temporarily <br class="">
until we can have a proper proposal discussed later that resolves it <br class="">
long term.<br class="">
<br class="">
However some people keep suggesting to extend the Co-Chair term without <br class="">
willing to go through a simple show of hands in a remote event as the <br class="">
PDP says. So how we suppose to do this? Regardless the type of job the <br class="">
person is doing there is not other way to extend his term other than the <br class="">
process outlined in the PDP.<br class="">
<br class="">
I don't see any other ways out of it.<br class="">
<br class="">
Fernando<br class="">
<br class="">
><br class="">
> Owen<br class="">
><br class="">
>> Fernando<br class="">
>><br class="">
>> On 21/07/2020 00:05, Owen DeLong wrote:<br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 6:22 PM, Fernando Frediani <br class="">
>>>> <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>>> Hi Owen. Sorry I don't really read the 3.6 the same way as you. 3.6 <br class="">
>>>> in my view wasn't thought for situation like this. It's being glued <br class="">
>>>> for the occasion that's not the case. 3.6 is about how the <br class="">
>>>> proposals are conducted, reviewed and passed within this forum in a <br class="">
>>>> exceptional situation (pretty much where we are). All points <br class="">
>>>> mentioned there have to do with proposals. We are not discussing or <br class="">
>>>> advancing a proposal right now.<br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>> That?s your special interpretation. It?s not what a plain english <br class="">
>>> reading of the language says.<br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>> 1.The PDP is in the document containing 3.6. The PDP is a process.<br class="">
>>> 2.The co-chair election process is in the document containing 3.6. <br class="">
>>> The co-chair election process is a process.<br class="">
>>> 3.3.6 says ?The process outlined in this document??.<br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>>> What CAN actually be done within 3.6 is someone to properly present <br class="">
>>>> a proposal to amend the PDP and fix the issues we are discussing <br class="">
>>>> here and then have this proposal treated under 3.6 (with no less <br class="">
>>>> than 4 weeks including the Last Call - which coincides with your <br class="">
>>>> point number 3 below).<br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>> I suppose that could also work, though it?s rather indirect and adds <br class="">
>>> (unnecessary IMHO) complexity.<br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>>> In my opinion proposal AFPUB-2019-GEN-007-DRAFT01 is ready for it, <br class="">
>>>> but I guess that may not reach consensus. So a much shorter <br class="">
>>>> proposal with just the essential we need to resolve this situation <br class="">
>>>> is the way to go under 3.6. Would that match with what you are <br class="">
>>>> trying to put ?<br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>> IMHO, AFPUB-2019-GEN-007-DRAFT01 is a fatally flawed proposal and I <br class="">
>>> would not support it as currently written.<br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>> I think a much more direct proposal to clarify an expanded scope of <br class="">
>>> 3.6 (closer to my interpretation instead of your rather narrow <br class="">
>>> interpretation) would be the most likely to gain consensus, frankly. <br class="">
>>> I think such is unnecessary, but _IF_ you insist on the (oddly) <br class="">
>>> narrow interpretation of 3.6 you have put forth, then?<br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>> Owen<br class="">
>>><br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>>> Fernando<br class="">
>>>><br class="">
>>>> On 20/07/2020 21:52, Owen DeLong wrote:<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 10:00 AM, Fernando Frediani <br class="">
>>>>>> <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br class="">
>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>> On 20/07/2020 13:39, Owen DeLong wrote:<br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>> <clip><br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>> This is an absurd claim. The standard (as you mention below) is <br class="">
>>>>>>> a ?raise of hands? vote. This mechanism even in person does not <br class="">
>>>>>>> allow people to verify that their vote was cast correctly, nor <br class="">
>>>>>>> is it fully auditable (indeed, it has no audit trail and is not <br class="">
>>>>>>> at all audible).<br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>> Placing more stringent requirements than exist on the current <br class="">
>>>>>>> system as an acceptance criteria for a system deployed urgently <br class="">
>>>>>>> in a time of crisis makes little sense to me.<br class="">
>>>>>> You are not making the things easier given the circumstances and <br class="">
>>>>>> all has been been discussed here.<br class="">
>>>>>> What is being said is analogous to raise of hand and is also a <br class="">
>>>>>> indisputable way to eliminate most possible fraud that have been <br class="">
>>>>>> pointed.<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> It is not my goal to make things easier for you or even <br class="">
>>>>> necessarily easier in general.<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> It is my goal to achieve the best possible outcome through a <br class="">
>>>>> mechanism that comes as close to applying the PDP rules as possible.<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>> 4 - In order to either choose another Co-Chair or to extend the <br class="">
>>>>>>>> current one term there must be a vote with raise of hands. <br class="">
>>>>>>>> There is no other way out of the PDP this can be done.<br class="">
>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>> This statement ignores CPM section 3.6:<br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>> 3.6??Varying the Process<br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>> The process outlined in this document may vary in the case<br class="">
>>>>>>> of an emergency. Variance is for use when a one-time waiving<br class="">
>>>>>>> of some provision of this document is required.<br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>> 1. The decision to vary the process is taken by a Working<br class="">
>>>>>>> Group Chair.<br class="">
>>>>>>> 2. There must be an explanation about why the variance is<br class="">
>>>>>>> needed.<br class="">
>>>>>>> 3. The review period, including the Last Call, shall not be<br class="">
>>>>>>> less than four weeks.<br class="">
>>>>>>> 4. If there is consensus, the policy is approved and it<br class="">
>>>>>>> must be presented at the next Public Policy Meeting.<br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>> Clearly this is the kind of exceptional circumstance in which <br class="">
>>>>>>> some variance could be justified.<br class="">
>>>>>> Sorry I don't see 3.6 applying to this situation on *any* of <br class="">
>>>>>> points mentioned. This section is about how the policies <br class="">
>>>>>> discussion, review, last call, etc work? 1) As I understand this <br class="">
>>>>>> decision is not up to the Chairs to take 2)Yes, we are working on <br class="">
>>>>>> the explanation, but who will give it ? Normally is whoever take <br class="">
>>>>>> the decision. 3) Nothing to do with elections 4) Nothing to do <br class="">
>>>>>> with the current scenario. There is no proper policy under <br class="">
>>>>>> discussion to be approved, only a discussion of what to do about <br class="">
>>>>>> the next elections.<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> It applies to all of the CPM ("The process outlined in this <br class="">
>>>>> document may vary??).<br class="">
>>>>> 1. If not the co-chairs, then who?<br class="">
>>>>> 2. I think the explanation is well understood? ?Because in person <br class="">
>>>>> meeting during the COVID crisis is impossible.?<br class="">
>>>>> 3. I?m not so sure about this. Whatever election process we decide <br class="">
>>>>> on should be put to a final community comment<br class="">
>>>>> period of some form. I see no reason that should be less than 4 weeks.<br class="">
>>>>> 4. So you?re saying that the determination of how to (or whether <br class="">
>>>>> to) conduct co-chair elections should be made<br class="">
>>>>> by some other method than community consensus and should not be <br class="">
>>>>> considered policy at least for this meeting?<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> How does that work?<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>> I still say that a (virtual) raising of hands using the <br class="">
>>>>>>> mechanisms available in nearly every conferencing system capable <br class="">
>>>>>>> of supporting<br class="">
>>>>>>> this meeting has the following advantages:<br class="">
>>>>>>> q<br class="">
>>>>>>> 1.Only meeting attendees may vote.<br class="">
>>>>>>> 2.Botting your meeting attendance would be reasonably difficult, <br class="">
>>>>>>> so it would be difficult for a person to stuff the ballot box.<br class="">
>>>>>>> 3.It does meet the literal requirements of the existing PDP.<br class="">
>>>>>>> 4.If we place reasonable bounds on meeting registration, we can <br class="">
>>>>>>> avoid the so-called ?sleeper cell? effect that some have<br class="">
>>>>>>> put forth as a concern. (Personally, I think this is less likely <br class="">
>>>>>>> in a virtual meeting anyway).<br class="">
>>>>>>> 5.If we place reasonable bounds on meeting registration, we also <br class="">
>>>>>>> manage to prevent (2) from being a concern.<br class="">
>>>>>>> 6.By ?reasonable bounds?, I mean pick a date certain in the past <br class="">
>>>>>>> by which one must have been subscribed to RPD.<br class="">
>>>>>>> Each email subscribed to RPD is entitled to one corresponding <br class="">
>>>>>>> meeting registration if they choose to. No subscribed<br class="">
>>>>>>> email, no registration for the meeting.<br class="">
>>>>>> I quiet like this idea, and that is exactly which is under <br class="">
>>>>>> discussion in one of the policies that should advance, but this <br class="">
>>>>>> is not backed in any part of PDP as far as I know as the moment. <br class="">
>>>>>> Who will determine what date is this ?<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> This would most certainly be a variation of the PDP to meet the <br class="">
>>>>> emergency as it exists which would be permitted under 3.6, so, yes,<br class="">
>>>>> my argument here depends on my argument above which you have <br class="">
>>>>> claimed you are not buying. However, hopefully with my expansions on<br class="">
>>>>> the topic above, I can perhaps convince you to change your mind <br class="">
>>>>> and recognize that without something like that, we literally box<br class="">
>>>>> ourselves into a situation with no way forward until such time as <br class="">
>>>>> we can arrange an in-person meeting. Personally, I think that?s<br class="">
>>>>> far from the best outcome.<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>> 7.My suggestions for the date certain would be the first day of <br class="">
>>>>>>> the originally scheduled in person AIS 2020 (May 31) or<br class="">
>>>>>>> the originally scheduled first day of the public policy meeting <br class="">
>>>>>>> (June 8 IIRC).<br class="">
>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>> This would make sense if there was basis for it, but currently <br class="">
>>>>>> there is AFAIK.<br class="">
>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> The basis for it is 3.6. Read the CPM carefully read 3.6. It?s not <br class="">
>>>>> rocket science. The CPM describes all of the policies, the PDP, <br class="">
>>>>> and the co-chair election process within the one document. Section <br class="">
>>>>> 3.6 provides for variance of the process[sic] should be processes <br class="">
>>>>> within<br class="">
>>>>> the document. That includes the co-chair election process unless <br class="">
>>>>> you can show me why it does not.<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>> Owen<br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>> Fernando<br class="">
>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>> If anyone has a reason they don?t think this is viable, please <br class="">
>>>>>>> express it. So far, I?ve seen lots of calls for other solutions, <br class="">
>>>>>>> but this<br class="">
>>>>>>> seems to be the approach with the fewest drawbacks and which can <br class="">
>>>>>>> easily be implemented in time.<br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>> Owen<br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>> Regards<br class="">
>>>>>>>> Fernando<br class="">
>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>> On 20/07/2020 03:06, Daniel Yakmut wrote:<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> Dear All,<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> We arrive at the airport and I will be turning the simple <br class="">
>>>>>>>>> matter placed on the table into a circus. The simple matter was:<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> 1. We will have AIS 2020 online and in September.<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> 2. A Co-chair's ?tenure has already ended. So an electronic <br class="">
>>>>>>>>> election is being proposed as part of the AIS 2020 Agenda. The <br class="">
>>>>>>>>> question is, is this possible?<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> 3. It is a fact that the Co-chair is currently serving within <br class="">
>>>>>>>>> an extended period.<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> 4. We now agree that the introduction of e-voting is <br class="">
>>>>>>>>> inevitable, as demonstrated by the pandemic.<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> However it is clear that<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> 1. We are going to have an online meeting , as nobody has <br class="">
>>>>>>>>> disagreed to that.<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> 2. There is a strong advocacy, for a process to include <br class="">
>>>>>>>>> e-voting in the Region, but the timing is short. Therefore we <br class="">
>>>>>>>>> need to commence the plan of creating an enabling atmosphere <br class="">
>>>>>>>>> to integrate e-voting.<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> 3. We need to ratify the extended period for a co-chair <br class="">
>>>>>>>>> tentatively for 12months. Which he has spent a month or so <br class="">
>>>>>>>>> already.<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> 4. Ensure we have an acceptable e-voting system ready for the <br class="">
>>>>>>>>> next date of election.<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> 5. Let agreed clearly on this simple issue and prepare for the <br class="">
>>>>>>>>> coming meeting.<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> Simply<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> Daniel<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 19, 2020 11:20 PM, "Fernando Frediani" <br class="">
>>>>>>>>> <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> I have read this message and several questions come to<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> mind as for example:<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> - What basis was used to say "it was overwhelmingly"<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> rejected ?<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> - Who actuallty represents the "current" community to<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> state it was "totally rejected" ?<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> - Whats basis was used to say that it would not work in<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> the region if that works in several other places and RIRs<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> including, with auditable systems ?<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> - Whats basis is used to say rhe community that voted for<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> the current Co-Chair in Kampla has the same confidence in<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> him and that he would win ? It seems more a personal wish<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> than anything based on fact or logic.<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> - Even in order to extend the current Co-Chair term the<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> PDP MUST be followed and there are no other ways written<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> there other than another vote. Otherwise how can this be<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> done ?<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> Fernando<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2020, 18:08 Emem William,<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> <<a href="mailto:dwizard65@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">dwizard65@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:dwizard65@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">dwizard65@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> Dear All,<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> I can? recollect that a similar proposal was proposed<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> as a policy and it was overwhelmingly rejected in<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> Angola. The current community totally rejected the<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> policy no one except the authors supported the idea<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> because we know it can't work in this region. Using<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> online voting now would be like passing the policy<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> using the backdoor. Am sure Jordie would like this<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> idea and hence his enthusiasm. However my candid<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> opinion is that we can't do this. The most appropriate<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> way forward is to allow the Co chair who has been<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> doing a fantastic job to continue for another 12<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> months or till the next face to face meeting. The<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> community that voted him in Kampala still have<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> confidence in him. In any case even with an online<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> election he would still likely win but I don't want<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> polices to be passed through the back door. Therefore<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> I think the most appropriate way for this has been<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> suggested as an extension for the co-chair who's seat<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> would have been contested.<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> Cheers.<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> Emem E. William<br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> RPD mailing list<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> RPD mailing list<br class="">
>>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
>>>>>>>>> <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br class="">
>>>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br class="">
>>>>>>>> RPD mailing list<br class="">
>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br class="">
>>>>>>>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
>>>>>>><br class="">
>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br class="">
>>>>>> RPD mailing list<br class="">
>>>>>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br class="">
>>>>>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
>>>>><br class="">
>>>> _______________________________________________<br class="">
>>>> RPD mailing list<br class="">
>>>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br class="">
>>>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
>>><br class="">
>> _______________________________________________<br class="">
>> RPD mailing list<br class="">
>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br class="">
>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
><br class="">
-------------- next part --------------<br class="">
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br class="">
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200721/5d88410b/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200721/5d88410b/attachment.html</a>><br class="">
<br class="">
------------------------------<br class="">
<br class="">
Subject: Digest Footer<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
RPD mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
------------------------------<br class="">
<br class="">
End of RPD Digest, Vol 166, Issue 78<br class="">
************************************<br class="">
</blockquote></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">RPD mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" class="">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br class="">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>