<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 25/09/2020 18:07, Anthony Ubah
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHcb0ASq2Wtxpi3zJDo=V4D1SBT3Pov6Ps3zXDC7CDtdxqjMxQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="auto"><clip>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">With respect to my policy proposal on Number
resource Transfer, a questions was asked about legacy
resources. This is relatively trivial to the idea of the
policy in general. This can be subject to a new Legacy policy
in its own right. However this proposal was done with the
grand intention of gaining reciprocity with the key donor of
IPv4s which is ARIN. The issues raised shouldn't halt this
policy. Jordi made some valid recommendations which can be
considered.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>It is definitively not. Letting them remain considered legacy is
a *major issue* that only benefit a few actors who gain
financially with it, plus incentives the continuation of a
historic internet issue that must end and bring all resources
under common rules that any other organization is bounded to on
the top of helping ending possible abuses from those who are still
not subject to the rules of any RIR.<br>
<br>
On the top of that this has never been mentioned in *any* message
for months of discussion and has never been raised as an issue.
Suddenly someone goes to the PPM, mentions that, it becomes a
mandatory change in order for the proposal to reach rough
consensus and the rest of the people who discussed it in details
have no chance oppose and properly put up their points ? It
doesn't make sense !<br>
If the logic is that then people that have financial means to
attend a future event may be in advantage of others that
participate only in the RPD list if willing to change something
substantial in the proposal at the very last minute. <br>
</p>
<p>FYI the Inter-RIR transfer policy in LACNIC states any legacy
resources transferred loses its status and it is still reciprocal
to any other RIR that have an Inter-RIR policy.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHcb0ASq2Wtxpi3zJDo=V4D1SBT3Pov6Ps3zXDC7CDtdxqjMxQ@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Lastly a comments was made about our problem
statement. I think it is clearly stated. The use of the term
"Business" has raised a few eyebrows and instigated ominous
thoughts. I urge everyone to read again with an open mind.
Internet is a global enterprise, and Number resources,
internet, IT infrastructure and business are an integral part
of our world today. It is impractical to separate the use of
number resources from business.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">These are my 10Cents.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Kind regards, </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Anthony Ubah</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, 5:03
PM <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">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" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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 noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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: Decisions and summary on policy proposals
discussed<br>
during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32) (Blaise
Fyama)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:02:20 +0200<br>
From: Blaise Fyama <<a href="mailto:bfyama@gmail.com"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">bfyama@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <<a
href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>><br>
Cc: rpd List <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] Decisions and summary on policy proposals
discussed<br>
during the online Policy meeting (AFRINIC 32)<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CAPehF5dv=<a
href="mailto:5yc_bHR6OEJwtr7V28qNhTk-tK-sf1C_eAxWGLmVQ@mail.gmail.com"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">5yc_bHR6OEJwtr7V28qNhTk-tK-sf1C_eAxWGLmVQ@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Chers co-chairs,<br>
Sans ?tre virulents ? votre ?gard j'ai juste deux remarques
? faire d'abord:<br>
<br>
1. L'aspect multilinguiste devrait ?tre respect? dans la
prise en compte de<br>
vos d?cisions, et je n'en ai pas le sentiment, ce qui
implique que pour<br>
accompagner solidement vos conclusions et vos inf?rences, un
tableau<br>
transparent regroupant sommairement les r?actions de chaque
membre<br>
politique apr?s politique serait le bienvenu car il
permettrait ? tout le<br>
monde d'avoir une vue claire et optimale de vos d?cisions.<br>
?tant un acad?mique de carri?re, je constate que sur 10
politiques<br>
seulement 2 sont adopt?es ou en voie de l'?tre ce qui laisse
sous-entendre<br>
que les 8 autres politiques, qui pourtant r?sultent de
grands efforts,<br>
donnent un sentiment d'?chec ? leurs auteurs. Pourriez-vous
?couter un peu<br>
plus leurs auteurs?<br>
Je reconnais par exemple que Jordi a longuement interagis et
?chang? avec<br>
plusieurs d'entre nous sa proposition m?riterait d'?voluer.<br>
<br>
2. Lorsqu'une remarque techniquement et valablement soutenue
vous est<br>
adress?e pourriez-vous aussi donner des explications<br>
proportionnellement longues? Vos r?ponses courtes et
laconiques laissent un<br>
sentiment de manque de consid?ration de ce qui vous est
adress? par les<br>
membres. Sinon vous risquez d'inspirer ? leur tour les
membres du PDWG que<br>
nous sommes ? concevoir des politiques qui limitent votre
propre r?le.<br>
<br>
La note positive dans tout ?a est que les 2 politiques ?
savoir les "Les<br>
pr?rogatives du conseil" et "Politique de transfert des
ressources" au vu<br>
des longues discussions pendant des mois ont quand m?me fait
du chemin. Je<br>
note seulement que nous devons rester alerte pour "Les
pr?rogatives du<br>
conseil" afin de ne pas affaiblir non plus le conseil qui
devrait demeurer<br>
un organe de prise des d?cisions, pour plus d'efficience et
d'efficacit?<br>
dans le fonctionnement de la communaut?.<br>
J'en f?licite les auteurs, surtout Taiwo avec qui j'ai eu
l'opportunit?<br>
d'?changer lors de l'avant-dernier sommet en Angola.<br>
<br>
Pour finir chers co-chairs efforcez-vous d'?tre multilingues
pour nous<br>
?crire en Fran?ais comme nous aussi on vous ?crit parfois en
Anglais.<br>
<br>
Cordialement,<br>
Blaise.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Blaise FYAMA<br>
Msc, PhD.<br>
Professeur Associ?<br>
Secr?taire G?n?ral Acad?mique Honoraire/UL<br>
Doyen de la Facult? des Sciences Informatiques/UPL<br>
Doyen a.i de la Facult? Polytechnique/UPL<br>
Chef de D?partement G?nie Electrique/ESI-UNILU<br>
Chef de Service Informatique/Polytech-UNILU<br>
Consultant Informatique BIT/PAEJK<br>
Membre de International Research Conference IRC/WASET<br>
Tel: +243995579515<br>
Num?ro O.N.I.CIV: 00460<br>
<br>
MSc, PhD.<br>
<br>
Associate Professor<br>
<br>
Honorary Academic Secretary General / UL<br>
<br>
Dean of the Faculty of Computer Science / UPL<br>
<br>
Dean a.i of the Polytechnic Faculty / UPL<br>
<br>
Head of Department of Electrical Engineering / ESI-UNILU<br>
<br>
IT Service Manager / Polytech-UNILU<br>
<br>
IT Consultant BIT / PAEJK<br>
<br>
Member of International Research Conference IRC/WASET<br>
<br>
Phone: +243995579515<br>
<br>
O.N.I.CIV number: 00460<br>
<br>
<br>
Le lun. 21 sept. 2020 ? 02:06, ABDULKARIM OLOYEDE <<br>
<a href="mailto:oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">oloyede.aa@unilorin.edu.ng</a>>
a ?crit :<br>
<br>
><br>
> Dear PDWG Members,<br>
><br>
> Please find below a summary for each of the proposal
discussed during the<br>
> just concluded online policy meeting of AFRINIC 32<br>
><br>
> 1. Simple PDP Update<br>
><br>
> This policy defines consensus. It also proposes that a
policy discussed at<br>
> the PPM does not need to come back for another PPM for
the Co-chairs to<br>
> arrive at a decision. This can help in streamlining the
work during the PPM<br>
> and encourages people to use the mailing list.<br>
><br>
> There were lots of irrelevant objections on the mailing
list such as<br>
> someone registering many emails. We believe that this
does not matter<br>
> because rough consensus is not about numbers but
quality objections.<br>
><br>
> However, there is strong opposition to this policy
based on the following:<br>
><br>
> a. Oppose the policy because of the
way the consensus<br>
> is reached. This proposal proposes that the consensus
be reached through a<br>
> balance of the mailing list/forum and not at the PPM.
This endangers fair<br>
> consensus and hijacks the policymaking process. Based
on experience, it is<br>
> during the PPM that most community members focus on
policies.<br>
><br>
> b. Issues around how the chairs should
drop proposals.<br>
><br>
> c. Trust in the mailing list: Some
strongly believe<br>
> that anonymous contribution should be allowed while
some believes it should<br>
> not.<br>
><br>
> d. Issues around having more than 1
PPM per year and<br>
> Online PPM because of volunteer burnout. We are all
volunteers and it?s a<br>
> night job for us. More PPMs mean more time to volunteer
and more chances<br>
> for burnouts<br>
><br>
> e. Some members of the Community
thinks only burning or<br>
> polarizing issues should be brought to the PPM.<br>
><br>
> Chairs Decision: No Consensus<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 2. PDP Working Group<br>
><br>
> This proposal aims at allowing most of the decisions
including chair<br>
> elections to be determined via consensus. This can be
reasonable when the<br>
> community has the same goal. However, there were a
number of objections to<br>
> it. These are:<br>
><br>
> a. Entrusting the WG to make their
decisions by<br>
> consensus and the appointment of their co-chairs by
consensus do not make<br>
> sense and is only utopic.<br>
><br>
> b. People are not policy proposals,
and thus choosing by<br>
> consensus is splitting hairs with the election process
we already have.<br>
> Save the consensus for the proposals, and the election
for people.<br>
><br>
> c. Consensus may even take months,
and this can?t fly<br>
> when we want to put people in the vacant roles.<br>
><br>
> d. Co-chairs should not have a hand in
the consensus,<br>
> but only sit back and let the community decide for
themselves.<br>
> Additionally, the consensus process is not feasible
with a deadline.<br>
><br>
> e. Focus on polishing the current
electoral process<br>
> instead of complicating other untested forms of
?election?.<br>
><br>
> f. The current status quo?s election
should be the<br>
> only option in choosing for the roles, and not through
less transparent<br>
> means.<br>
><br>
> g. Board would be interfering too
much on issues that<br>
> deal with PDP<br>
><br>
> Chairs Decision: No Consensus<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 3. Chairs Election Process<br>
><br>
> This proposal aims at introducing an online voting
system for the<br>
> Co-Chairs election. The following are the opposition to
this proposal.<br>
><br>
> a. This policy reduces participation.
Equal<br>
> representation is violated because the board has
unprecedented power.<br>
><br>
> b. There is also not enough
information on the logistics<br>
> of the vote (e-voting).<br>
><br>
> c. There is a contradiction on when
the term ends<br>
> during the meeting. ?The term ends during the first PPM
corresponding to<br>
> the end of the term for which they were appointed? is
not clear enough, and<br>
> ?A term may begin or end no sooner than the first day
of the PPM and no<br>
> later than the last day of the PPM as determined by
mutual agreement of the<br>
> current Chair and the new Chair? contradicts each
other.<br>
><br>
> d. Gender restriction on 3.3.1.3 ,
some community<br>
> members argue it is impractical and maybe even unfair
if we force both<br>
> chairs to have different genders.<br>
><br>
> e. Issues around which voter's
register should be<br>
> adopted<br>
><br>
> Chairs Decision: No Consensus<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 4. Board Prerogatives<br>
><br>
> This proposal aims at clarifying how the board and the
PDWG works.<br>
> However, there were a few oppositions to this proposal
except for a<br>
> specific section.<br>
><br>
> a. It seems like a piecemeal approach
to dealing with<br>
> issues.<br>
><br>
> b. Opposition to the section below<br>
><br>
> *?As an exception of the preceding paragraph, in the
absence of elections<br>
> processes for aspects related to the PDP (co-chairs,
appeal committee),<br>
> those aspects will be still handled by the board in
consultation with the<br>
> community. However, this is also a temporary measure
and also specific<br>
> draft policy proposals should be introduced for that*?.
The authors<br>
> agreed to remove the above section hence<br>
><br>
> Chairs Decision: Consensus provided the above section
is removed<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 5. Policy Compliance Dashboard<br>
><br>
> The policy proposal seeks to provide a framework or a
policy compliance<br>
> dashboard be developed by AFRINIC and incorporated in
myAFRINIC (and future<br>
> member?s communication platforms). It will allow a
periodic review of the<br>
> policy compliance status of each member. It will also
enable members to<br>
> receive automated notifications for any issue. Staff
will receive repeated<br>
> warnings of lack of compliance or severe violations
enshrined in the CPM.<br>
> However, there are several oppositions to this
proposal, such as:<br>
><br>
> a. This policy seems to be redundant
of the status quo<br>
> as violations are already checked and processed by the
human staff.<br>
><br>
> b. There is already an existing system
of guidelines on<br>
> keeping track of the violations of members.<br>
><br>
> c. The policy is not binding and does
not enforce<br>
> members actually to follow the rules and not violate
policies.<br>
><br>
> d. Ignorance could be a convenient
excuse for violations<br>
> because one could claim that they never got notified
about their violations.<br>
><br>
> e. There is no comprehensive system on
how the board<br>
> should take proper actions once members violate
policies, nor does it give<br>
> guidelines based on the severity of the violations.<br>
><br>
> f. This policy takes away resources
that could be used<br>
> for more beneficial pursuits to AFRINIC for something
existing in the<br>
> system.<br>
><br>
> g. It an administrative process, and
this should be<br>
> left to staff<br>
><br>
> Chairs Decision: NO rough Consensus<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 6. Abuse Contact Update<br>
><br>
> The proposal makes it mandatory for AFRINIC to include
in each resource<br>
> registration, a contact where network abuse from users
of those resources<br>
> will be reported. The proposal whois DB attribute
(abuse-c) to be used to<br>
> publish abuse public contact information. There?s also
a process to ensure<br>
> that the recipient must receive abuse report and that
contacts are<br>
> validated by AFRINIC regularly. However, there some
opposition to the<br>
> proposal there are:<br>
><br>
> a. Staff analysis on how it affects
legacy holder not<br>
> conclusive (not sure why this should affect legacy
holders)<br>
><br>
> b. The proposal doesn?t state what
will be the<br>
> consequences of one member fails to comply. Why are we
creating the abuse<br>
> contact when there is no consequence for not providing
the abuse contact<br>
><br>
> c. Abuse contact email and issues
with GDPR concerning<br>
> the whois database<br>
><br>
> d. No proper definition of the term
Abuse<br>
><br>
> e. To force members to reply to their
abuse email is not<br>
> in the scope of AFRINIC.<br>
><br>
> Chairs Decision: No rough consensus<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 7. RPKI ROAs for Unallocated and Unassigned
AFRINIC Address Space<br>
><br>
> The proposal instructs AFRINIC to create ROAs for all
unallocated and<br>
> unassigned address space under its control. This will
enable networks<br>
> performing RPKI-based BGP Origin Validation to easily
reject all the bogon<br>
> announcements covering resources managed by AFRINIC.
However, there are<br>
> many oppositions such as:<br>
><br>
> a. Allowing resource holders to
create AS0/ ROA will<br>
> lead to an increase of even more invalid prefixes in
the routing table.<br>
><br>
> b. Revocation time of AS0 state, and
the time for new<br>
> allocation doesn?t match.<br>
><br>
> c. Other RIRs don?t have a similar
the policy<br>
> therefore, it can not be effective<br>
><br>
> d. This will become a uniform policy
if it is not<br>
> globally implemented, which causes additional stress.<br>
><br>
> e. Validity period: if members
decide to implement it,<br>
> is it not better to recover the space if it is kept
unused for too long?<br>
><br>
> f. How do we revoke the ROA? How
long does it take to<br>
> revoke it (chain/ refreshing )?<br>
><br>
> g. What happens if AFRINIC
accidentally issues a ROA<br>
> for an address in error?<br>
><br>
> h. It also might affect the neighbours
and involves<br>
> monitoring of unallocated spaces.<br>
><br>
> i. Possibility of it being used
against a member who<br>
> is yet to pay dues.<br>
><br>
> Suggestions were made to improve the policy such as<br>
><br>
> a) The automatic creation of AS0 ROAs
should be limited<br>
> to space that has never been allocated by an RIR or
part of a legacy<br>
> allocation.<br>
><br>
> b) AFRINIC should require the explicit
consent of the<br>
> previous holder to issue AS0 ROAs in respect of
re-claimed, returned, etc,<br>
> space.<br>
><br>
> c) Any ROAs issued under this policy
should be issued<br>
> and published in a way that makes it operationally easy
for a relying party<br>
> to ignore them (probably by issuing under a separate
TA).<br>
><br>
> d) The proposal should include the
clause ?as used in<br>
> APNIC as to dues not paid on time.?<br>
><br>
> Chairs Decision: No consensus<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 8. IPv4 Inter-RIR Resource Transfers
(Comprehensive Scope)<br>
><br>
> The proposal puts in place a mechanism to transfer IPv4
and (some ASN)<br>
> resources between AFRINIC and other RIRs and between
AFRINIC<br>
> members/entities. Some conditions are attached to the
source and recipient<br>
> based on need and disclosure made. The inter-RIR
transfers will be<br>
> suspended if the number of outgoing IPv4 addresses
exceeds the incoming<br>
> ones for six consecutive months. However, there are
oppositions to it<br>
><br>
> a. ASN Transfer is not necessary<br>
><br>
> b. Issue of board inferring: no board
in all of the five<br>
> RIRs have ever been involved in deciding a transfer or
allocating IP<br>
> address. It is not the board's responsibility.<br>
><br>
> c. Suspending clause with no
reinstalling clause. This<br>
> mainly makes the policy potentially invalid.<br>
><br>
> Chairs Decision: No consensus.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 9. AFRINIC Number Resource Transfer<br>
><br>
> a. Not realistic for one-way inter
RIR resource<br>
> transfer as it has to be reciprocal. One way would
never happen as only<br>
> global resources can come in and go out<br>
><br>
> b. It would be difficult for the
recipient to follow the<br>
> rules of AFRINIC if they are not in the African region.<br>
><br>
> c. No need for ASN transfer. If one
is moving regions<br>
> and doesn't have an ASN in the new region, it can
request and receive from<br>
> the local RIRs<br>
><br>
> d. Additional attributes create
none-operational<br>
> complexity in the whois database.<br>
><br>
> Chairs Decision: No consensus.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 10. Resource Transfer Policy<br>
><br>
> This proposal aims to introduce Inter RIR transfer.
However, it has the<br>
> following opposition<br>
><br>
> a. Issues with Legacy holder transfer
is potentially<br>
> considered none-reciprocal by ARIN<br>
><br>
> b. Potential abuse of AFRINIC free
pool without the time<br>
> limit of receiving an allocation from AFRINIC.<br>
><br>
> Chairs Decision: The proposal is the least contested of
all the 3<br>
> competing proposals. However because of the community?s
desire and clear<br>
> expression for the need for an Inter RIR transfer, we,
the Co-chairs,<br>
> believe that in the interest of the community we should
focus on a proposal<br>
> rather than several similar ones. This desire was
clearly expressed at the<br>
> AFRINIC 31 meeting in Angola. Therefore, We suggest
that the authors of<br>
> this proposal make the following amendments:<br>
><br>
> ? 5.7.3.2 Source entities are not eligible to
receive further<br>
> IPv4 allocations or assignments from AFRINIC for 12
months period after the<br>
> transfer.<br>
><br>
> ? 5.7.4.3. Transferred legacy resources will
still be regarded as<br>
> legacy resources.<br>
><br>
> Chairs Decision: Provided that the above are amended,
the decisions is<br>
> Rough Consensus is achieved<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Based on the above, The updated version of the follow
proposal which<br>
> achieved rough consensus would be posted on the PDWG
website<br>
><br>
> *1. **Board Prerogatives *<br>
><br>
> *2. **Resource Transfer Policy*<br>
><br>
> Therefore, these two policies are now on last call.<br>
><br>
> Co-Chair<br>
> PDWG<br>
><br>
> Website <<a href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.unilorin.edu.ng</a>>,
Weekly Bulletin<br>
> <<a
href="http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/bulletin</a>>
UGPortal<br>
> <<a href="http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://uilugportal.unilorin.edu.ng/</a>>
PGPortal<br>
> <<a href="https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://uilpgportal.unilorin.edu.ng/</a>><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer
noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a
href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">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/20200925/a8a5d980/attachment.html"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20200925/a8a5d980/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of RPD Digest, Vol 168, Issue 213<br>
*************************************<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>