Fwd: [DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Moving RFC1480 (The US Domain) to Historic
Hi Kim I hope this email finds you well. The messages below were forwarded to me by Eberhard. I am wondering whether the suggestion to develop a principled understanding to mark informational documents as historic would affect the nature of RFC 1591? It's my understanding that, in this context, historic means obsolete or outdated standards that are no longer recommended. Best regards, Alejandra ******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. ******************************************* On 2025-12-18 23:02, Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
There are RFCs from that period that need less misunderhistoricalizing than others, so we need to be very careful in this regard.
el
On 2025-12-18 22:37, Kim Davies wrote:
Hi,
Quoting mohamed.boucadair@orange.com on Thursday December 18, 2025:
The processing of the errata below triggered a discussion with Paul about moving this RFC to historic.
The RFC was foundational at early days, but it obviously includes historical data and does not reflect current practices for this domain, let alone that this is handled by national bodies.
Unless I'm hearing good reasons to not tag the document as Historic, I will be starting a status change process early next year.
While it is hard to argue that this document is historical, this is is one of many documents that were essentially snapshots of IANA procedure from that era, principally authored by IANA personnel. While today IANA may publish such procedural documents in other forms, such as on our website, this is from a time when publishing an RFC with Informational status was the norm.
I would suggest rather than singling out this document in isolation for this treatment, we should develop a principled understanding of whether informational documents of this nature should be marked as historic, and then reclassifying status consistently across all of them.
kim
[...] -- Eberhard W. Lisse \ /Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (retired) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht\ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP 10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply
-- Eberhard W. Lisse Suite 4.01 Ormond Building Managing Director 31-36 Ormond Quay Upper Omadhina Internet Services Ltd Arran Quay, Dublin 7 <directors@omadhina.IE> Ireland D07 F6DC
Hi Alejandra, If RFC 1591 were to be marked as historic, it would have no effect on the reliance on its text by the ccNSO and ICANN. I assume this is what you mean by “affect the nature”. Even with historic status, RFC 1591 would continue to be published as-is. Third parties can continue to cite RFC 1591 and assign what meaning they like to it. RFC 1591 was authored and published as an Informational RFC by IANA staff in 1994. Informational status means expressly that it “does not represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation”. Informational RFCs provide an open channel to allow parties to publish RFCs that are on general interest matters that have not been subject to the rigors of standardization in the IETF. For example, RFC 3071 is another Informational RFC that is just one person’s personal opinions on what RFC 1591 means. That too carries no official status. I understand that subsequently the ICANN community has determined retroactively that RFC 1591 (or, I would suggest, _parts_ of it) is ICANN policy, but that is not a consequence of it going through any IETF approval process. The RFC carries a clear warning<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1591> that it is “not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing”. The context of this thread on RFC 1480 is someone has suggested an erratum to the document, basically fixing a grammatical error in the document. The impetus to move RFC 1480 as historic was to dispense with the need to consider such corrections as it is effectively archived as a historical document as-is. I think that if we are to consider doing that it should be in the context of all such documents produced in that era. These IANA procedures from the 1990s and earlier are clearly no longer being maintained in the same manner as part of the RFC series, and should be subject to the same consideration. On RFC 1591, I assume there will never be a revision to it in the IETF process, because responsibility and authority for its subject matter moved to ICANN as a consequence of the MOU between ICANN and the IETF executed in 2000. I continue to recommend to the ccNSO that it phase out its reliance on RFC 1591 as it is a problematic document to cite in day-to-day operations. It contains a mixture of elements that are clearly and factually incorrect or not applicable. To casual readers who are pointed to it as the “policy”, they cannot easily understand what parts are still applicable and which they should ignore. As I shared with the community back around 2009, and more recently in the PGAWG, it would be very useful for all operative text of RFC 1591 to be extracted into a new document and republished as the current basic policy for ccTLDs. Even better would be a single cohesive policy that integrates it with its subsequent amendments (e.g. fast track, framework of interpretation, retirement policy, review mechanism) but I appreciate that is potentially highly sensitive, so realistically I am only suggesting extracting only the exact phrases and wording out of RFC 1591 that still apply today, removing the rest, and publishing it as a superseding ICANN document. That would be an excellent development and negate concerns about what status RFC 1591 has with the RFC Editor. I drafted such a potential document over 15 years ago and I recall Jordan did so more recently as a thought exercise, and I’d be happy to contribute to such an endeavour in the future. Thanks for reaching out, and happy to discuss further. kim From: Alejandra Reynoso Barral <alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com> Date: Friday, December 19, 2025 at 03:55 To: Kim Davies <kim.davies@iana.org> Cc: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>, ccNSO Leadership <ccnso-leadership@icann.org> Subject: Fwd: [DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Moving RFC1480 (The US Domain) to Historic Hi Kim I hope this email finds you well. The messages below were forwarded to me by Eberhard. I am wondering whether the suggestion to develop a principled understanding to mark informational documents as historic would affect the nature of RFC 1591? It's my understanding that, in this context, historic means obsolete or outdated standards that are no longer recommended. Best regards, Alejandra ******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. ******************************************* On 2025-12-18 23:02, Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
There are RFCs from that period that need less misunderhistoricalizing than others, so we need to be very careful in this regard.
el
On 2025-12-18 22:37, Kim Davies wrote:
Hi,
Quoting mohamed.boucadair@orange.com<mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> on Thursday December 18, 2025:
The processing of the errata below triggered a discussion with Paul about moving this RFC to historic.
The RFC was foundational at early days, but it obviously includes historical data and does not reflect current practices for this domain, let alone that this is handled by national bodies.
Unless I'm hearing good reasons to not tag the document as Historic, I will be starting a status change process early next year.
While it is hard to argue that this document is historical, this is is one of many documents that were essentially snapshots of IANA procedure from that era, principally authored by IANA personnel. While today IANA may publish such procedural documents in other forms, such as on our website, this is from a time when publishing an RFC with Informational status was the norm.
I would suggest rather than singling out this document in isolation for this treatment, we should develop a principled understanding of whether informational documents of this nature should be marked as historic, and then reclassifying status consistently across all of them.
kim
[...] -- Eberhard W. Lisse \ /Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (retired) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht\ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP 10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply
-- Eberhard W. Lisse Suite 4.01 Ormond Building Managing Director 31-36 Ormond Quay Upper Omadhina Internet Services Ltd Arran Quay, Dublin 7 <directors@omadhina.IE> Ireland D07 F6DC
Kim, we specifically created the Framework of Interpretation to address the ambiguities of RFC 1591. I do not see any reason, whatsoever, to go there. el -- Sent from my iPhone On Dec 19, 2025 at 18:55 +0200, Kim Davies <kim.davies@iana.org>, wrote:
Hi Alejandra,
If RFC 1591 were to be marked as historic, it would have no effect on the reliance on its text by the ccNSO and ICANN. I assume this is what you mean by “affect the nature”. Even with historic status, RFC 1591 would continue to be published as-is. Third parties can continue to cite RFC 1591 and assign what meaning they like to it.
RFC 1591 was authored and published as an Informational RFC by IANA staff in 1994. Informational status means expressly that it “does not represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation”. Informational RFCs provide an open channel to allow parties to publish RFCs that are on general interest matters that have not been subject to the rigors of standardization in the IETF. For example, RFC 3071 is another Informational RFC that is just one person’s personal opinions on what RFC 1591 means. That too carries no official status. I understand that subsequently the ICANN community has determined retroactively that RFC 1591 (or, I would suggest, _parts_ of it) is ICANN policy, but that is not a consequence of it going through any IETF approval process. The RFC carries a clear warning that it is “not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing”.
The context of this thread on RFC 1480 is someone has suggested an erratum to the document, basically fixing a grammatical error in the document. The impetus to move RFC 1480 as historic was to dispense with the need to consider such corrections as it is effectively archived as a historical document as-is. I think that if we are to consider doing that it should be in the context of all such documents produced in that era. These IANA procedures from the 1990s and earlier are clearly no longer being maintained in the same manner as part of the RFC series, and should be subject to the same consideration. On RFC 1591, I assume there will never be a revision to it in the IETF process, because responsibility and authority for its subject matter moved to ICANN as a consequence of the MOU between ICANN and the IETF executed in 2000.
I continue to recommend to the ccNSO that it phase out its reliance on RFC 1591 as it is a problematic document to cite in day-to-day operations. It contains a mixture of elements that are clearly and factually incorrect or not applicable. To casual readers who are pointed to it as the “policy”, they cannot easily understand what parts are still applicable and which they should ignore. As I shared with the community back around 2009, and more recently in the PGAWG, it would be very useful for all operative text of RFC 1591 to be extracted into a new document and republished as the current basic policy for ccTLDs. Even better would be a single cohesive policy that integrates it with its subsequent amendments (e.g. fast track, framework of interpretation, retirement policy, review mechanism) but I appreciate that is potentially highly sensitive, so realistically I am only suggesting extracting only the exact phrases and wording out of RFC 1591 that still apply today, removing the rest, and publishing it as a superseding ICANN document. That would be an excellent development and negate concerns about what status RFC 1591 has with the RFC Editor. I drafted such a potential document over 15 years ago and I recall Jordan did so more recently as a thought exercise, and I’d be happy to contribute to such an endeavour in the future.
Thanks for reaching out, and happy to discuss further.
kim
From: Alejandra Reynoso Barral <alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com> Date: Friday, December 19, 2025 at 03:55 To: Kim Davies <kim.davies@iana.org> Cc: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>, ccNSO Leadership <ccnso-leadership@icann.org> Subject: Fwd: [DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Moving RFC1480 (The US Domain) to Historic
Hi Kim
I hope this email finds you well.
The messages below were forwarded to me by Eberhard. I am wondering whether the suggestion to develop a principled understanding to mark informational documents as historic would affect the nature of RFC 1591? It's my understanding that, in this context, historic means obsolete or outdated standards that are no longer recommended.
Best regards, Alejandra
******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. *******************************************
On 2025-12-18 23:02, Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
There are RFCs from that period that need less misunderhistoricalizing than others, so we need to be very careful in this regard.
el
On 2025-12-18 22:37, Kim Davies wrote:
Hi,
Quoting mohamed.boucadair@orange.com on Thursday December 18, 2025:
The processing of the errata below triggered a discussion with Paul about moving this RFC to historic.
The RFC was foundational at early days, but it obviously includes historical data and does not reflect current practices for this domain, let alone that this is handled by national bodies.
Unless I'm hearing good reasons to not tag the document as Historic, I will be starting a status change process early next year.
While it is hard to argue that this document is historical, this is is one of many documents that were essentially snapshots of IANA procedure from that era, principally authored by IANA personnel. While today IANA may publish such procedural documents in other forms, such as on our website, this is from a time when publishing an RFC with Informational status was the norm.
I would suggest rather than singling out this document in isolation for this treatment, we should develop a principled understanding of whether informational documents of this nature should be marked as historic, and then reclassifying status consistently across all of them.
kim
[...] -- Eberhard W. Lisse \ /Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (retired) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht\ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP 10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply
-- Eberhard W. Lisse Suite 4.01 Ormond Building Managing Director 31-36 Ormond Quay Upper Omadhina Internet Services Ltd Arran Quay, Dublin 7 <directors@omadhina.IE> Ireland D07 F6DC
Dear Kim Happy new year 2026! I hope you are having a good start of activities. Thank you for the clarification and context regarding the different statuses of RFCs. I appreciate your observations on the complexities of RFC 1591, both in terms of its content and its status within the IETF. While I acknowledge that a change in IETF status may not affect its standing as “policy” in the ICANN/ccTLD context, I am concerned that such a change could nonetheless lead to additional misunderstandings within the community. For this reason, I believe it would be best to refrain from making any changes to its status. With respect to the issues you raised in 2009, and again during the recent ccNSO policy gap analysis effort, I would welcome the opportunity to revisit these concerns more thoroughly in the future once the policy gap study groups finish their work. Best regards, Alejandra ******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. ******************************************* On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 5:49 PM Kim Davies <kim.davies@iana.org> wrote:
Hi Alejandra,
If RFC 1591 were to be marked as historic, it would have no effect on the reliance on its text by the ccNSO and ICANN. I assume this is what you mean by “affect the nature”. Even with historic status, RFC 1591 would continue to be published as-is. Third parties can continue to cite RFC 1591 and assign what meaning they like to it.
RFC 1591 was authored and published as an Informational RFC by IANA staff in 1994. Informational status means expressly that it “does not represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation”. Informational RFCs provide an open channel to allow parties to publish RFCs that are on general interest matters that have not been subject to the rigors of standardization in the IETF. For example, RFC 3071 is another Informational RFC that is just one person’s personal opinions on what RFC 1591 means. That too carries no official status. I understand that subsequently the ICANN community has determined retroactively that RFC 1591 (or, I would suggest, _*parts*_ of it) is ICANN policy, but that is not a consequence of it going through any IETF approval process. The RFC carries a clear warning <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1591> that it is “not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing”.
The context of this thread on RFC 1480 is someone has suggested an erratum to the document, basically fixing a grammatical error in the document. The impetus to move RFC 1480 as historic was to dispense with the need to consider such corrections as it is effectively archived as a historical document as-is. I think that if we are to consider doing that it should be in the context of all such documents produced in that era. These IANA procedures from the 1990s and earlier are clearly no longer being maintained in the same manner as part of the RFC series, and should be subject to the same consideration. On RFC 1591, I assume there will never be a revision to it in the IETF process, because responsibility and authority for its subject matter moved to ICANN as a consequence of the MOU between ICANN and the IETF executed in 2000.
I continue to recommend to the ccNSO that it phase out its reliance on RFC 1591 as it is a problematic document to cite in day-to-day operations. It contains a mixture of elements that are clearly and factually incorrect or not applicable. To casual readers who are pointed to it as the “policy”, they cannot easily understand what parts are still applicable and which they should ignore. As I shared with the community back around 2009, and more recently in the PGAWG, it would be very useful for all operative text of RFC 1591 to be extracted into a new document and republished as the current basic policy for ccTLDs. Even better would be a single cohesive policy that integrates it with its subsequent amendments (e.g. fast track, framework of interpretation, retirement policy, review mechanism) but I appreciate that is potentially highly sensitive, so realistically I am only suggesting extracting only the exact phrases and wording out of RFC 1591 that still apply today, removing the rest, and publishing it as a superseding ICANN document. That would be an excellent development and negate concerns about what status RFC 1591 has with the RFC Editor. I drafted such a potential document over 15 years ago and I recall Jordan did so more recently as a thought exercise, and I’d be happy to contribute to such an endeavour in the future.
Thanks for reaching out, and happy to discuss further.
kim
*From: *Alejandra Reynoso Barral <alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com> *Date: *Friday, December 19, 2025 at 03:55 *To: *Kim Davies <kim.davies@iana.org> *Cc: *Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>, ccNSO Leadership < ccnso-leadership@icann.org> *Subject: *Fwd: [DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Moving RFC1480 (The US Domain) to Historic
Hi Kim
I hope this email finds you well.
The messages below were forwarded to me by Eberhard. I am wondering whether the suggestion to develop a principled understanding to mark informational documents as historic would affect the nature of RFC 1591? It's my understanding that, in this context, historic means obsolete or outdated standards that are no longer recommended.
Best regards,
Alejandra
******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. *******************************************
On 2025-12-18 23:02, Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
There are RFCs from that period that need less misunderhistoricalizing than others, so we need to be very careful in this regard.
el
On 2025-12-18 22:37, Kim Davies wrote:
Hi,
Quoting mohamed.boucadair@orange.com on Thursday December 18, 2025:
The processing of the errata below triggered a discussion with Paul about moving this RFC to historic.
The RFC was foundational at early days, but it obviously includes historical data and does not reflect current practices for this domain, let alone that this is handled by national bodies.
Unless I'm hearing good reasons to not tag the document as Historic, I will be starting a status change process early next year.
While it is hard to argue that this document is historical, this is is one of many documents that were essentially snapshots of IANA procedure from that era, principally authored by IANA personnel. While today IANA may publish such procedural documents in other forms, such as on our website, this is from a time when publishing an RFC with Informational status was the norm.
I would suggest rather than singling out this document in isolation for this treatment, we should develop a principled understanding of whether informational documents of this nature should be marked as historic, and then reclassifying status consistently across all of them.
kim
[...] -- Eberhard W. Lisse \ /Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (retired) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht\ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP 10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply
-- Eberhard W. Lisse Suite 4.01 Ormond Building Managing Director 31-36 Ormond Quay Upper Omadhina Internet Services Ltd Arran Quay, Dublin 7 <directors@omadhina.IE> Ireland D07 F6DC
Very politely but firmly done. It ain't broke and don't need fixin... el, -- Sent from my iPhone On Jan 9, 2026 at 18:00 +0200, Alejandra Reynoso Barral <alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com>, wrote:
Dear Kim
Happy new year 2026! I hope you are having a good start of activities.
Thank you for the clarification and context regarding the different statuses of RFCs. I appreciate your observations on the complexities of RFC 1591, both in terms of its content and its status within the IETF. While I acknowledge that a change in IETF status may not affect its standing as “policy” in the ICANN/ccTLD context, I am concerned that such a change could nonetheless lead to additional misunderstandings within the community. For this reason, I believe it would be best to refrain from making any changes to its status.
With respect to the issues you raised in 2009, and again during the recent ccNSO policy gap analysis effort, I would welcome the opportunity to revisit these concerns more thoroughly in the future once the policy gap study groups finish their work.
Best regards, Alejandra
******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. *******************************************
On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 5:49 PM Kim Davies <kim.davies@iana.org> wrote:
Hi Alejandra,
If RFC 1591 were to be marked as historic, it would have no effect on the reliance on its text by the ccNSO and ICANN. I assume this is what you mean by “affect the nature”. Even with historic status, RFC 1591 would continue to be published as-is. Third parties can continue to cite RFC 1591 and assign what meaning they like to it.
RFC 1591 was authored and published as an Informational RFC by IANA staff in 1994. Informational status means expressly that it “does not represent an Internet community consensus or recommendation”. Informational RFCs provide an open channel to allow parties to publish RFCs that are on general interest matters that have not been subject to the rigors of standardization in the IETF. For example, RFC 3071 is another Informational RFC that is just one person’s personal opinions on what RFC 1591 means. That too carries no official status. I understand that subsequently the ICANN community has determined retroactively that RFC 1591 (or, I would suggest, _parts_ of it) is ICANN policy, but that is not a consequence of it going through any IETF approval process. The RFC carries a clear warning that it is “not endorsed by the IETF and has no formal standing”.
The context of this thread on RFC 1480 is someone has suggested an erratum to the document, basically fixing a grammatical error in the document. The impetus to move RFC 1480 as historic was to dispense with the need to consider such corrections as it is effectively archived as a historical document as-is. I think that if we are to consider doing that it should be in the context of all such documents produced in that era. These IANA procedures from the 1990s and earlier are clearly no longer being maintained in the same manner as part of the RFC series, and should be subject to the same consideration. On RFC 1591, I assume there will never be a revision to it in the IETF process, because responsibility and authority for its subject matter moved to ICANN as a consequence of the MOU between ICANN and the IETF executed in 2000.
I continue to recommend to the ccNSO that it phase out its reliance on RFC 1591 as it is a problematic document to cite in day-to-day operations. It contains a mixture of elements that are clearly and factually incorrect or not applicable. To casual readers who are pointed to it as the “policy”, they cannot easily understand what parts are still applicable and which they should ignore. As I shared with the community back around 2009, and more recently in the PGAWG, it would be very useful for all operative text of RFC 1591 to be extracted into a new document and republished as the current basic policy for ccTLDs. Even better would be a single cohesive policy that integrates it with its subsequent amendments (e.g. fast track, framework of interpretation, retirement policy, review mechanism) but I appreciate that is potentially highly sensitive, so realistically I am only suggesting extracting only the exact phrases and wording out of RFC 1591 that still apply today, removing the rest, and publishing it as a superseding ICANN document. That would be an excellent development and negate concerns about what status RFC 1591 has with the RFC Editor. I drafted such a potential document over 15 years ago and I recall Jordan did so more recently as a thought exercise, and I’d be happy to contribute to such an endeavour in the future.
Thanks for reaching out, and happy to discuss further.
kim
From: Alejandra Reynoso Barral <alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com> Date: Friday, December 19, 2025 at 03:55 To: Kim Davies <kim.davies@iana.org> Cc: Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na>, ccNSO Leadership <ccnso-leadership@icann.org> Subject: Fwd: [DNSOP] Re: [Ext] Moving RFC1480 (The US Domain) to Historic
Hi Kim
I hope this email finds you well.
The messages below were forwarded to me by Eberhard. I am wondering whether the suggestion to develop a principled understanding to mark informational documents as historic would affect the nature of RFC 1591? It's my understanding that, in this context, historic means obsolete or outdated standards that are no longer recommended.
Best regards, Alejandra
******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. *******************************************
On 2025-12-18 23:02, Eberhard W Lisse wrote:
There are RFCs from that period that need less misunderhistoricalizing than others, so we need to be very careful in this regard.
el
On 2025-12-18 22:37, Kim Davies wrote:
Hi,
Quoting mohamed.boucadair@orange.com on Thursday December 18, 2025:
The processing of the errata below triggered a discussion with Paul about moving this RFC to historic.
The RFC was foundational at early days, but it obviously includes historical data and does not reflect current practices for this domain, let alone that this is handled by national bodies.
Unless I'm hearing good reasons to not tag the document as Historic, I will be starting a status change process early next year.
While it is hard to argue that this document is historical, this is is one of many documents that were essentially snapshots of IANA procedure from that era, principally authored by IANA personnel. While today IANA may publish such procedural documents in other forms, such as on our website, this is from a time when publishing an RFC with Informational status was the norm.
I would suggest rather than singling out this document in isolation for this treatment, we should develop a principled understanding of whether informational documents of this nature should be marked as historic, and then reclassifying status consistently across all of them.
kim
[...] -- Eberhard W. Lisse \ /Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (retired) el@lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht\ / If this email is signed with GPG/PGP 10007, Namibia ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply
-- Eberhard W. Lisse Suite 4.01 Ormond Building Managing Director 31-36 Ormond Quay Upper Omadhina Internet Services Ltd Arran Quay, Dublin 7 <directors@omadhina.IE> Ireland D07 F6DC
participants (3)
-
Alejandra Reynoso Barral -
Eberhard W Lisse -
Kim Davies