<div dir="auto"><div>Dear Fernando, </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The fact that it took Lacnic over 3 years to exhaust its pool means nothing for Afrinic. The pace in which the African economy develops and requires IP resources is different from Latin America at the time. The fact is, we have no way of predicting when exactly the will be empty. It could be a couple of years, but could also be a couple of months. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I, for one, think the latter case is much more likely, as African internet coverage has to be growing exponentially because of covid. Millions of people NEED internet access as soon as possible because it would mean having access to online education or remote jobs. The importance of thorough internet coverage in the region is now more important than ever before. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That is why, it is my strong conviction that we have to have a inter RIR transfer policy as soon as possible. Let us not wait for a disaster to come at our doorstep, and set up the necessary measures while it is still on the horizon. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The resource transfer policy purposed by Anthony and Taiwo is the best option we have at this point of time. If we pass it now, we will not only create a security net for the region, but will also have a chance to empirically assess all aspects of the policy before the next PPM. Then, if certain issues do come up - they could be be easily amended in the next meeting. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This is how good policymaking works: the policy is implemented and then it's impact is carefully studied. Only after receiving empirical data it can be subsequently fine-tuned. This is an established practice in most policy making institutions simply because it is impossible to account for all contingencies when drafting a policy. It would be much more valuable to observe the impact of the policy in practice for a few months and amend it if needed, than waste these months building a castle in the sky. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Best wishes, </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Kay </div><div dir="auto"><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 26 Sep 2020, 06:04 Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>I never mentioned "not do to anything", just to get the things
right rather than rush,even if it takes a couple of more months.<br>
It is much worst to get a bad policy than have none. The examples
I put was to show that this scenario is not as terrible as some
people are putting as almost if the internet was going to stop
work if this policy doesn't advance.<br>
</p>
<p>Even if it takes a couple more of months to get that things right
and out of this mess it will not be a big deal at all for the
region.<br>
It's not true this proposal works. It still lacks confirmations
specially from other RIRs.<br>
"Many more years" is of course an exaggeration on your side and we
are talking about months rather than years which surely will not
hurt.</p>
<p>The legacy stuff is currently like this: it loses its status, it
is like this in other places as well which shows this is the
obvious thing to keep. This was never mentioned in the discussion
of this proposal for months and changed at the very last minute
which gives no chance to others to equally oppose. If there is
something to be discussed in another proposal is if the current
status should change or not, not what is being trying to be done
at rush.<br>
</p>
<p>There is no "forcing them to lose their legacy status". Whoever
sell them don't care other than the money they receive. Whoever
receives is only interested in the usage of the resources. What is
being said about this is not correct how things really are in
practical.<br>
</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On 26/09/2020 00:47, Ibeanusi Elvis
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
Dear Fernando,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"When LACNIC transitioned from Phase 2 to Phase 3 of
the exhaustion phases which is very similar to what just
happened to AfriNic Phase 2, it took exactly <b>3 years
and 6 months</b> for it to be completely empty”. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>According to what you are insinuating, it is
preferable not to do anything about the resources which are
still going to exhaust. Thats makes no sense, it will be better
if preparations are made prior to the entire exhaustion of the
resources. LACNIC might have lasted 3 years and 6months before
it completely emptied that does not mean we should take the same
route as them, you learn from others not entirely copy their
system or mode of handling things.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Additionally, “good or not organisation survived,
found their way to work with this new scenario now there is a
proper and well discussed proposal that works well for everybody
and allow in and out transfer from ALL other RIRs”</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The fact that the organisation survived does not
100% imply that if the same system of waiting till everything
ends entirely is applied, AFRINIC will survive. It is best to
take early necessary precautions and not wait till when we are
in a desperate and maybe unsurvivable state before we do
something. Also, this proposal is well detailed and works.
Waiting for many more years and years of discussion is just
compounding the staffs of the AFRINIC organisation and the
community with excessive work as well. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Regarding the legacy resource holders, it is better
to have a dedicated legacy proposal for them and work with them
not forcing them to lose their legacy status. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Elvis</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Consider that LACNIC has a much higher
demand than AfriNic and during most of these 3 years it
survived without a Inter-RIR policy that was discussed
for quiet a while before it reached consensus, plus the
time it took for it to be implemented by staff which
happened just recently in middle of this year.On Sep 26,
2020, at 11:39, Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<p>A couple of information for those who are
scary about "the pool be empty shortly".</p>
<p>When LACNIC transitioned from Phase 2 to
Phase 3 of the exhaustion phases which is very
similar to what just happened to AfriNic Phase 2, it
took exactly <b>3 years and 6 months</b>
for it to be completely empty. <br>
Consider that LACNIC has a much higher demand than
AfriNic and during most of these 3 years it survived
without a Inter-RIR policy that was discussed for
quiet a while before it reached consensus, plus the
time it took for it to be implemented by staff which
happened just recently in middle of this year.</p>
<p>Good or not organizations survived, found
their way to work with this new scenario e now there
is a proper and well discussed proposal that work
well for everybody and allow in and out transfer
from ALL other RIRs. And by the way legacy resources
lose its status like is expected. <br>
And by the way, there is absolutely no "fight" with
legacy resource holders, not at all. They don't care
what will happen when they sell their resources on
sold. Whoever is buying are not really much
interested in this status, but in acquiring them for
their usage and that's it.<br>
</p>
<p>AfriNic can take some more time, specially
in the current uncertainty scenario to get a proper
and better discussed proposal that will in fact be
reciprocal to all other RIRs and benefit the region
to keep going after the pool is completely empty
which still takes some time.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On 25/09/2020 22:08,
lucilla fornaro wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dear all,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Accepting this policy implies that
AFRINIC will develop a way to get even more
resources to satisfy and push the demand of
the developing market. </div>
<div>We often talked about smoother
business (why the community is so scared about
this word?) operations, the policy does not
facilitate any fraud. All resources are
allocated and transferred in the base of a
proven need. It is an expensive process, and
it is reasonable to think that no one would
operate a fraud that causes loss instead of
benefits.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, shortly the pool will be
empty, but the policy proposes a way to fight
it and promote access to further resources
before it's too late.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Lucilla</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Il giorno sab 26
set 2020 alle ore 09:49 Ibeanusi Elvis <<a href="mailto:ibeanusielvis@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ibeanusielvis@gmail.com</a>>
ha scritto:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Dear
Marcus, Dear Community,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I do not concur with your
analogy and accusations on the proposal or
policy written by Anthony Ikechukwu Ubah
and Taiwo Oyewande called “Resource Transfer
Policy” as being a hindrance to the smooth
operation of business, is entirely false.
The major intention of this policy is to
support and boost businesses i Africa not to
hinder the operation of business.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Likewise, the policy is not
based on a fake problem of the African
region. This is baseless accusation and a
wrong self-interpretation of what factual
intentions of the Resource Transfer Policy,
Anthony and Taiwo should be appreciated for
pointing out this issue. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On the other hand, "<i><span lang="EN-US"><font face="tahoma, sans-serif">Basically,
the Resource Transfer Policy is
intended to take Internet Resources on
one region to the other. We all know
that Africa is at its developing stage
and needs more internet resources to
support its developmental process.
Accepting this policy means that the
little resources left in our region
will be taken away, especially when we
don’t have the mechanism in place to
enforce the auditing of the use of the
allocated resources.</font></span></i><font face="tahoma, sans-serif"><i>”</i></font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font face="tahoma,
sans-serif"><i>The purpose of
this policy is to support a “TWO-WAY
INTER-RIR POLICY” which implies that
AFRINIC can receive and transfer
resources. With the exhaustion of the
IPv4, the adoption of this policy will
do a greater good to the
African continent as it supports the
circulation of resources into and out of
all the RIRs </i></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma,
sans-serif"><i><br>
</i></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma,
sans-serif"><i>Best, </i></font></div>
<div><font face="tahoma,
sans-serif"><i>Elvis</i></font></div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Sep 26, 2020, at
02:24, Taiwo Oyewande <<a href="mailto:taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr">Hi all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Discussing a
problem statement that will
not be implemented in the
CPM is not really taking us
forward. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is an
obvious war against the co
chairs for doing a job that
the community mandated them
to do by the status of their
election. The co-chairs
discussed each points raised
with the various authors and
tried to see if all the
points were duly addressed
before making their
decisions. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I saw a false
and misleading statement
about the cochairs trying to
get the authors of 2 of the
3 related policies against
the authors of the 3rd
policy. Is this what members
of this working group has
turned to?</div>
<div>Trying to create
a bad name for another
member using scenarios that
never occurred. I think that
is the height of desperation
and such defamation of
character should not be
encouraged on this list</div>
<div><br>
<div dir="ltr">Taiwo</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 25 Sep 2020,
at 14:17, Marcus K. G.
Adomey <<a href="mailto:madomey@hotmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">madomey@hotmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div id="m_-7794148244773602462gmail-m_1467110844684016632appendonsend" style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt">
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"> Dear all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The
Policy “Resource
Transfer Policy”
(AFPUB-2019-V4-003-DRAFT01)
proposed by Anthony
Ikechukwu Ubah and
Taiwo Oyewande is
based on a fake
problem for our
region.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(1) “The
current policy fails
to support a two-way
Inter-RIR policy” –
And so what? This
was an intra-RIR
transfer policy, not
meant to be
Inter-RIR</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(2)
“there by hindering
smooth business
operation”</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Can the
authors of the
policy show how the
current situation is
“hindering smooth
business operation?”</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Further,
they should tell us
what they mean by
“smooth business
operation”.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>(3)
“development and
growth in the
region”</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Can the
authors of the
policy prove that
the current status
is hindering
“development and
growth in the
region”?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is
clear that the
authors of the
policy have used
unsubstantiated
claims to buttress
the need for this
policy.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Basically,
the Resource
Transfer Policy is
intended to take
Internet Resources
on one region to the
other. We all know
that Africa is at
its developing stage
and needs more
internet resources
to support its
developmental
process. Accepting
this policy means
that the little
resources left in
our region will be
taken away,
especially when we
don’t have the
mechanism in place
to enforce the
auditing of the use
of the allocated
resources.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Moreover,
any unmanaged
inter-RIR transfer
policy will weaken
the development of
the Internet in the
region as we have no
control over this
global market which
never played in our
favor. It may also
affect AFRINIC
operations.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Recent
findings discussed
on this list show
how transferred
resources are being
used. The global
community is yet to
discuss the impact
on transfer. I am
more concerned for
our region.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Reconsider
your decision and
let us discuss the
best approach to
engage the Region
into the global
resources transfer
world.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Marcus</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"> <br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"> <br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"> <br>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%">
<div id="m_-7794148244773602462gmail-m_1467110844684016632divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><b>From:</b>
Murungi Daniel <<a href="mailto:dmurungi@wia.co.tz" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">dmurungi@wia.co.tz</a>><br>
<b>Sent:</b>
Wednesday, September
23, 2020 8:59 PM<br>
<b>To:</b>
rpd >> AfriNIC
Resource Policy <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
<b>Subject:</b>
Re: [rpd] Transfer
Policy Proposal
v.3.docx</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">
<div><font size="2">Hello,</font></div>
<div><font size="2"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="2">Can
the authors of the
resource transfer
policy in the last
call explain,
which problem is
being addressed?<br>
<br>
The problem
statement
is awkward to say
the least. The
issue with the
problem statement
was raised in
Luanda and during
the virtual AIS.
How can we can
adopt a proposal
when the
problem statement
is out of scope of
the PDP?<br>
<br>
——-<br>
1. Summary of the
problem being
addressed by this
proposal<br>
The current policy
fails to support a
two-way Inter-RIR
policy, thereby
hindering smooth
business
operation,
development, and
growth in the
region. This
proposal aims to
establish an
efficient and
business-friendly
mechanism to allow
a number of
resources to be
transferred
from/to other
regions. This
proposal outlines
a model in which
AFRINIC can freely
transfer number
resources to/from
other regions,
i.e. RIPE NCC,
APNIC, ARIN and
LACNIC. This
includes both
IPv4 addresses and
AS numbers.<br>
——-<br>
<br>
<br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="2">Regards,</font></div>
<div><font size="2"><br>
Murungi Daniel</font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On
Sep 23, 2020, at
10:39 PM,
Fernando
Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>
<p>Hello</p>
<p>There
is no much I
can do other
than state my
<b>opposition
to this
proposal</b>
to advance and
reach any
consensus
mainly because
5.7.4.3 has
been inverted
from what was
originally in
the proposal
and only
changed at
last minute
due to some
comments in
the PPM going
straight to
last call
which didn't
give
opportunity to
the community
re-evaluate
this major
change and if
it's suitable
to the region
or not.</p>
<p>Co-Chairs
cannot advance
this proposal
to rough
consensus the
way it is and
I urge and ask
them again to
bring it back
to discussion
to find out a
resolution to
these opened
issues.
Multiple
people raised
substantial
concerns about
it already.
There is no
way it can be
considered
'rough
consensus'.</p>
<p>I
also
understand
there may be a
hurry to get a
Inter-RIR
transfer
policy as soon
as possible,
but we must
care about
what is most
important than
that which is
get policies
to reflect
what is really
good for the
region and not
just to a few
actors, even
if it takes a
bit longer. I
support
Jordi's
suggestion to
have another
PPM in a few
months so
perhaps this
proposal can
advance from
that point in
time. LACNIC
remained about
2 years
without a
Inter-RIR
transfer
policy after
it run out of
addresses for
new
organizations
and survived.
AfriNic will
survive if it
has to wait a
few more
months in
order to get
things really
right.</p>
<p>Now
going to the
merit of the
proposal
specially the
main point I
oppose
(5.7.4.3):<br>
There is no
sense at all
to keep
considering
transferred
legacy
resources as
legacy. This
doesn't work
that way and
has a proper
reason to be
like that
which is fix a
historical
internet
problem and
reduce legacy
resources with
time as they
get
transferred to
'normal'
organizations
who purchased
them in the
market for
example.<br>
In this way
organizations
receiving
these
resources are
bind to the
same rules
everybody else
making it much
fair to
everybody and
making no
distinction
between
members.<br>
Allowing
resources to
remain
considered
legacy only
contributed to
abuses and
unfairness
allowing those
who can pay
more do
whatever they
like which is
bad for the
rest of the
Internet
community
which are
subject to the
same rules
that apply
equally to
them.<br>
If transferred
legacy
resources are
not considered
legacy anymore
more and more
they will
apply equally
for everybody
as they become
as a normal
resource
within any
RIR. There has
been a strong
reason for
this be like
that until now
and to
continue like
that.<br>
</p>
<p>Regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div>On
23/09/2020
09:49, JORDI
PALET MARTINEZ
via RPD wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi Taiwo, all,
I've looked into the doc.
Let me say something before going into a more detailed analysis: I *fully support* this proposal, and I will be happy to withdraw it once:
1) The staff confirms that all the points on the staff analysis have been cleared and thus, the policy could be implemented and will be functional in the intended purpose.
2) The board ratifies the policy (which means also it passes the last call).
Why? If anything in the process fails, I still believe my proposal is clearer and never mind is my proposal or this one I'm happy to work with the authors to make sure to resolve the issues that may happen as indicated in 1 and 2 above (hopefully there are no issues).
I've now a more detailed analysis, please really, needs to be taken seriously with the staff or we may ruin the policy and not allow to be functional.
There is something which doesn't make sense: The text in point 5.7. The CPM should be read always as "actual" so "soon will exhaust ..." is not logic, neither needed for the purpose of this policy. In addition, there are typos there ...
This is an editorial change that according to the PDP should be possible as part of the last call. I will suggest to keep it simple:
5.7 IPv4 Resources transfer
This policy applies to an organization with a justified need for IPv4 resources (recipients) and organizations with IPv4 resources which no longer need (sources).
I see that the "disputes" issue has been resolved! Tks! Anyway, I think there is another editorial problem there.
Actual text:
5.7.3.1 The source must be the current rightful holder of the IPv4 address resources registered with any RIR, and shall be in compliance with the policies of the receiving RIR, and shall not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.
I suggest:
5.7.3.1 The source must be the current rightful holder of the IPv4 address resources registered with any RIR, in compliance with the relevant policies, and shall not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.
Keeping the "policies of the receiving RIR" is contradictory ... changing it with "relevant policies" allows both RIRs to ensure that everything is correct.
Grammar maybe, I'm not English native speaker:
"for 12 months period" or "for a 12 months period"
I think 5.7.3.3. doesn't add any value, it could be removed and doesn't change anything: if there is no limite, no need to mention it. If there is not agreement, clearly the transfer will not happen because the parties don't authorize it, and then the RIR(s) don't authorize it!
Similarly 5.7.4.2. could be removed as well. We already said that the recipient should comply with policies (5.7.3.1), so what is this adding? Just superfluous text.
Note also my imputs in the previous email, regarding the hold period and the legacy status. I think 5.7.4.3, should be "IPv4 legacy resources "Transferred incoming or within AFRINIC IPv4 legacy resources will no longer be regarded as legacy resources".
5.7.5.1 is already indicated by the staff as something problematic with the actual wording. The transferring party (the source) may not have any relation (not a member) with the receiving RIR. With this text we are enforcing *all the RIRs* to offer a standard template and process on our mandate. WE CAN'T DO THAT. Our policies only have a mandate in AFRINIC, not in the other RIRs.
If we just remove section 5.7.5, and leave it to the staff as part of the operational procedure, the the problem is resolved because the existing process among the all other 4 RIRs for transfers will be "joined" by AFRINIC. It is just a matter of interconection among systems and processes!
I think all this should be carefully studied among the authors and the staff and the chairs should make sure that the verstion coming to last call has corrected all those issues.
I hope all this is useful.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 23/9/20 9:38, "Taiwo Oyewande" <a href="mailto:taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"><taiwo.oyewande88@gmail.com></a> escribió:
Hello PDWG,
Attached is the updated version of the Resource Transfer Policy proposal. As recommended, changes have been effected on sub-section 5.7.3.2, and 5.7.4.3 according to the co-chair summary.
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
<a href="http://www.theipv6company.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://www.theipv6company.com</a>
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br>
<span>RPD
mailing list</span><br>
<span><a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a></span><br>
<span><a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a></span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">RPD@afrinic.net</a>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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>
</blockquote></div></div></div>