I oppose this proposal as it doesn't seem will resolve the problem, but
just change it.
Seems nothing can will avoid that someone to register a new company, get
into the waiting list, receive an allocation and right after that be
"purchased" by another company which is not entitled to be in
Hello Anthony and all
To be very practical it doesn't matter much how this community interprets
Afrinic's proposal at this stage.
If ARIN staff interprets in a different way that's what matters really, and
that interpretation has been provided to Afrinic staff already.
Even though it was v2, v3
a Canadian judge order ARIN to register
the blocks to the buyer?
And the more important question as to whether ARIN would re-register
blocks back to a seller who doesn’t get paid?
That would involve policy questions, I think.
Regards,
Mike
*From:* ARIN-PPML *On Behalf Of *Fernando
Frediani
*Sent
I am not sure exactly about RIPE but any court must take in
consideration that the RIR policies must apply for the "buyer" to have
the right to register it. Since in most RIRs the golden rule is (and
must keep being) be able to justify for the addresses being received
(either via a donation or
I agree fees are more a RSA and member related thing than policy
related, however for most it may be mentioned in either RSA, web
documentation, etc, it must still be said be *well clear in the
policies* that lack of payment is a potential reason for space
revocation, which is what is been
Perhaps the clear future is to stay on a waiting-list for nonexistent
IPv4 addresses and continue to increase all the CGNAT related issues and
raise tensions on these forums for example.
Sincerely, in my view there is way too much political correctness to
leave people comfortableto implement
On 21/07/2020 14:39, Rob Seastrom wrote:
This proposal may bring an issue in such scenario and perhaps there should
still be some minimal time restriction that makes it more difficult for
fraudsters to act with such intention.
The counter argument is that putting such time restrictions in
I have difficulties to support this policy.
Although I understand the fact organizations were in the waitlist
previously I also see that one who has already up to a /18 should has
space to carry on and adjust itself for the current reality without this
extra /22 which can be left for new
What is the justification to give organization who already have some
reasonable space to work with, more space in current times ?
Everybody is suffering from the same problem of IPv4 scarcity and that
affects all equally. If we have already a policy that limits on /20 it
is for a reason, a
I remain opposed to this proposal for the same reasons stated before.
I don't see what can avoid that someone to register a new company, get
into the waiting list, receive an allocation and right after that be
"purchased" by another company which is not entitled to be in the
waiting list
Obviously anyone has the right to petition, but I am trying to
understand the intent of this appeal. Make the Board of Trustees to push
something that haven't had enough support from the community ?
It may meet some minimal criteria to be a proposal and be discussed but
it didn't reach
Changing the answer below to /22 instead of /20
1b. If so, what should that upper limit be?
Fernando
On 16/12/2020 02:23, Fernando Frediani wrote:
Answers below:
On 15/12/2020 16:38, Owen DeLong wrote:
Dear ARIN community,
We (the AC, and specifically the proposal shepherds) need
Answers below:
On 15/12/2020 16:38, Owen DeLong wrote:
Dear ARIN community,
We (the AC, and specifically the proposal shepherds) need to solicit some
additional feedback in order to better know the community’s desire with regards
to this policy. Specifically, we’d like to ask the following
I don't think anyone is blaming the organizations that stood in the
queue for doing anything wrong for "loosing" the resources that could
have been assigned to them. They didn't loose because they never ended
up having it. As most have been saying meeting all requirements at the
time and
Unfortunately there is way too much political correctness in the sense
of 'leaving people free to choose to do it whenever they feel like
without any penalties', but at the same time is forgotten that nobody
exists alone in the Internet ecosystem and that certain decisions worse
the problem to
What is this ?
People coming to support this just because they see a opportunity to get
a few more space for their own organizations and not because this is a
fair and equitable to all existing and potential members of the Internet
Community.?
Everybody that operates in the Internet
I am not sure if people are aware, but the proposal discuss in this list
is not a vote or a democratic system where the majority of people can
determine if something should advance or not.
Proposals are discussed by their merit and impact in the community. If
there are valid objections opened
> need to use IPv6 are a waste of time, and are the correct way to keep the
> community tiny.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
> PS If we have reached 25 petitions, please let us know. Somebody must be
> counting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Didn't these ISPs in 2021 not invest IPv6 deployment and good CGNAT
techniques and they rely only on keep getting more addresses from ARIN ?
Fernando
On Fri, 15 Jan 2021, 13:29 Jay Wendelin, wrote:
> I support this petition, I have many Public School Clients that rely on
> their ISP’s to
>
> cidimage002.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
cidimage003.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0 cidimage004.png@01D698CE.05CAF3C0
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Fernando Frediani
> Date: Friday, January 15, 2021 at 10:36 AM
> To: Jay Wendelin
Yes we are, mainly when there are tentatives to push something that
hasn't been broadly accepted by the community as many other proposals
that didn't progress.
If a proposal doesn't reach consensus is probably because it didn't
resolve all the possible issues it had during the discussion
Yes fees are most a RSA thing, but I see no harm to keep the actual
wording as it is and make it loud and clear that organizations that
don't pay the fees are subjected to resources revocation - which is up
to this forum to define - so no one may plead ignorance about it.
What is the problem to
RSAs, for what I hope are obvious reasons, must be
controlled far more tightly, hence the separation between the two.
I hope this helps clarify things.
-Chris
On Jan 15, 2021, at 3:36 PM, Fernando Frediani <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Applies to all resources
text is a better way to deal with the issues.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 17:09 Fernando Frediani <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Yes fees are most a RSA thing, but I see no harm to keep the
actual wording as it is and make it loud and clear that
organizations that don't pay
One thing I wanted to highlight is that support to the policy is not
necessarily a support to the petition. There is a difference in the
reasoning for both.
The support to the petition should be (at least in theory) because these
people supporting it are dissatisfied with an action taken by
at 5:14 PM, Fernando Frediani <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Yes to focus solely on allocation policies that means make it clear
when a revocation may happen which is governed by this forum.
Fernando,
Only my personal opinion on the subject and subject to correction from
ARIN
the Board decides the RSA will be.
Regards
Fernando
On 16/01/2021 16:59, John Curran wrote:
On 16 Jan 2021, at 10:35 AM, Fernando Frediani <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hello Owen
*Any* revocation must always be governed by this forum which is the
only body who has power
19:30, John Curran wrote:
On 16 Jan 2021, at 3:39 PM, Fernando Frediani <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Exactly John, that's why the Board of Trustees or equivalent body has
to approve policies that advances from this forum, to make sure they
are in line with the applicable law, op
, that authority comes from the membership, not this
policy forum. Yes, there is significant overlap between the two, but
they are distinct groups.
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 18:23 Fernando Frediani <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi David
I am not against it has, but it doe
, at 8:37 PM, Fernando Frediani <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I am sure we are talking about the same thing David.
The authority to establish the rules in which resources are allocated
and revoked is a prerogative from this forum (which includes members
and non-members), as in any
/01/2021 20:42, David Farmer wrote:
The Board has the power to set fees, which includes at least the power
to revoke resources for nonpayment. If it did not, the power to set
fees would be meaningless.
Thanks
On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 5:29 PM Fernando Frediani
mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>>
Hello Michael
I don't agree with John's view that if Board would decide to do this it
would still make ARIN compatible with ICANN's ICP-2 specially Section 3
simply because Board represents only members not the community and
having a body elected only by the members which is one of the
Sorry correcting a typo, I meant at the end "otherwise policies would
tend to be made directed to benefit only as subset of Internet
participants in the region."
Regards
Fernando
On 17/01/2021 11:53, Fernando Frediani wrote:
Hello Michael
I don't agree with John's view that if B
On 12/01/2021 16:52, Chris Woodfield wrote:
I’d like to address the following statement in your petition: "when given the
opportunity to explain their rationale behind their vote against, 4 of the 6 AC
council members have not responded.”
The Advisory Council, like all deliberative bodies,
Hello John
Congratulations for making this public statement in a very clear and
fair way based on facts that happened and real evidence.
I don't really agree every time I read stuff like "Every RIR should
resolve their own problems". Obviously there is some specific stuff of
the region and
I believe this type of topic which John shared to this list is indeed
relevant to it.
I don't think all messages sent here should be only about proposals, but
also to subjects directly related Policy Development Process and RIR IP
Assignments.
Most of people who actively participate on this
llions
> > life
> > > dead to proof it
> > > > won’t work?
> > > >
> > > > mailto:sc...@solarnetone.org>>于2021年9月3日
> >
Exactly, the right to review is a principle in place and if triggered
the resource holder must explain again if he still justify to maintain
those resources.
I don't see a need to report any changes afterwards the resources were
assigned by the RIR, *as long they keep being used according to
Owen, words are just words.
If one justify like that they have to prove it properly and if they are
unable they should be refused until they are able to. It is simple as that.
Fernando
On Tue, 7 Sep 2021, 12:54 Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML,
wrote:
> >
> > As it turns out, we already handle
On Tue, 7 Sep 2021, 13:27 John Curran, wrote:
>
>
> If for some reason you’d like the concept of “technical need" for number
> resources to somehow be redefined to encompass your financial desire to
> satisfy the number resource needs of other organizations, then submit a
> proposal to change
+1
Pretty good and clear explanation.
I am glad that more most people seem to reject the idea that IP leasing
may be a good or even justified thing, including for those who end up
paying for it.
On 08/09/2021 22:33, John Curran wrote:
On 8 Sep 2021, at 5:02 PM, Owen DeLong
On 08/09/2021 17:56, Owen DeLong wrote:
ICP-2 has no relevance once an RIR is accredited. It is a document defining the
process for accrediting a new RIR and it only governs ICANN’s process for doing
so.
If ICANN is replaced and the IANA role is granted to some other institution,
ICP-2
“Johns" have given a great many
years of good and faithful service to a public that owes them both
gratitude and respect.
Owen
/elvis
-Chris
On Sep 7, 2021, at 10:49 AM, Fernando Frediani
mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Elvis
I have the same view as you do.
Despite
Hi Elvis
I have the same view as you do.
Despite this undertanding (and maybe the Board too - and correct me if I
don't reproduce it accuratelly) I refuse the view that "PDP is a concession
of the Board to the Community" and - this is what makes it even more
controvertial - that 'this does not
As you seem to know well, can you detail the type of these 'network
services' provided and also if the justifications given to AfriNic by
the actual resource holder for the IP addresses involved in these
services when they were assigned are still the same ?
Fernando
On 06/09/2021 07:02,
What does being non-profit have to do with not paying the executives that
run the day by day of the organization ?
Fernando
On Sun, 19 Sep 2021, 01:33 Steve Noble, wrote:
> Since they are a non-profit, they could also cut executive salaries. As of
> 2019, John was being paid over $546,000 to
beneficial to the Internet instead
of just bet on the fast deployment of IPv6.
Regards
Fernando
Em 13/09/2021 15:32, William Herrin escreveu:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 10:54 AM Fernando Frediani wrote:
I don't know who was the "genius" back in the past on network vendors
wh
I don't know who was the "genius" back in the past on network vendors
who embedded to not forward traffic for that amount of /8's market as
Future Use. I think that was one of the most disastrous decisions ever
made in this area of IP space.
Using 240/4 on network equipment now a days is
Owen, you repeat this fixed idea over and over and over that LIR 'lease'
addresses exactlly the same way those who don't have any commitment to
building any internet but only speculate with IP addresses do, in a try to
justify and make it normal the last one.
It ia not too hard to see the
Being part of Policy Development Processes I see people sometimes
unwilling to have certain rules and restrictions that are correct and
fair with the justification that "people will break it" or they will do
under the table, so then it seems there is a suggestion of "let's have
next to no
Surely people benefiting from IP leasing will keep trying to make it
'normal', acceptable and part of day by day as if these middleman were
facilitating something for the good of the internet while it is the
opposite.
This practice serves exclusively to the financial benefit of those who
lease
Owen, you seem lately to be endeavoring tireless to make IP leasing
something normal and acceptable to most scenarios and make some weird
reading of the rules (not just in this RIR) to justify this view (your
own view that fortunately doesn't seem to match most of others) that IP
leasing and
Mike, please refrain from saying that everything people say in this list
against your ideas or interests is "ad hominem".
Chris points are perfectly valid and reasonable, but instead each and
every time you face an message that you dislike in a discussion your may
have interest you find a way
Well, it seems that leasing practices are not that popular among
community and tentatives to change the rules to make it easier or more
soft to those who focus on these practices will not be something that
may happen anytime soon.
So despite what some people say that "That´s a normal practice
Hi
I think there are a few important points to highlight.
First I personally don't see a problem in the existence of a NomCom. If
that exists is because the membership wanted that at some point to have
it in the bylaws so that just reflects their wish and understanding a
NomCom is something
On 22/09/2021 03:49, Noah wrote:
So they choose to lease, and address holders are happy to monetize
their holdings while they appreciate in value.
By address holders you mean LIR. So what you are saying is that some
LIR out there who requested for IPv4 based on need from ARIN, are
of the community that is able to participate properly.
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:12 PM, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
I believe maybe Michael didn't understand well the matter fully or
got only part of it.
Probably
Hi Bill
You are right that just because we can't prevent something doesn't mean
we have to legitimize it or make it easy.
I don't really have much concern when people say the RIR will find it
difficult to enforce it. It is important to separate things: if
something is categorically wrong
I believe maybe Michael didn't understand well the matter fully or got
only part of it.
Probably what caused more confusion was how Owen put the part "No
signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted by policy to engage in a
recurring charge for addresses or a differentiated service charge based
on
Just want to say that I also oppose this proposal for similar reasons as
stated by Bill Herrin and Chris Woodfiled.
Get them directly from ARIN (either via Waiting List or a regular
Transfer - which remains directly from ARIN) and not via a LIR and don't
try to make LIRs play RIRs roles.
Also
Em 21/09/2021 14:22, Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML escreveu:
This policy doesn’t affect that… Leasing of address space you already
have is permitted under current policy and cannot be grounds for
revocation of address space.
The change in this policy proposal is not to permit or deny leasing,
On 11/03/2022 14:56, Tom Fantacone wrote:
Bill,
We can quibble about semantics, but let's go with your verbiage:
If I run a network and qualify for an /18 right now, can I go to ARIN
and lease one? I must either /pay someone to release their addresses
to ARIN to lease to me/ or lease one
e legitimate
option?
-Scott
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 10:02 AM Fernando Frediani
wrote:
On 11/03/2022 14:56, Tom Fantacone wrote:
Bill,
We can quibble about semantics, but let's go with your verbiage:
If I run a network and qualify for an /18 right now, can I go to
ARIN and
I am opposed to this proposal.
In fact it sound like a debauchery to try to permit leased addresses to
be a valid reasons for justifying any type of allocation.
It is not in ARIN interest to facilitate something that not only is
essentially against the fundamental of IP usage and
Wrong.
You don't lease addresses from ARIN.
You receive them for used based on the justified needs and you pay an
administrative fee to support the services to keep all the
infrastructure necessary for the ecosystem that keeps track of those
resources remain operational. This has nothing to
The justification that one cannot pay for something (make a proper
Transfer as expected under the current policy) doesn't seem to be a
valid justification to remove a essential requirement for justifying
need to usage of those resources that don't belong to them.
The principle of usage
Hi David
If I understand correctly you seem to have a view that there should be a
ARIN policy to permit IPv4 leasing just because it is a reality and we
kind of have to accept it in our days. No we don't, and that's for many
different reasons.
I am used to see people saying the brokers are
2022 at 1:33 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hi David
If I understand correctly you seem to have a view that there
should be a ARIN policy to permit IPv4 leasing just because
it is a
ompliant".
Oh and funny joke that a broker is like a LIR.
On 17/03/2022 17:32, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hi David
If I understand correctly you seem to have a view that there should
be a ARIN policy to permit IPv4 leasing just because it
would likely support it.
-Scott
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 1:33 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
wrote:
On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hi David
If I understand correctly you
to my satisfaction, but
once we ensure it does so, I would likely support it.
-Scott
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 1:33 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net>> wrote:
On Mar 16, 2022, at 15:22 , Fernando Frediani
mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com>
It seems that is suggested the interest of the sellers may be above the
interests of the ARIN community which I obviously disagree. Need to find
out what fits for the current scenario we face but community interests
should always prevail.
And again RIPE examples are almost always not very
I tend to think that transfers originally exists due to IPv4 exhaustion
and that is justified. IPv6 and 32-bit ASN don't have the same
justification, only 16-bit ASN.
I would also like to understand it better.
Regards
Fernando
On 21/01/2022 14:18, Scott Leibrand wrote:
Are Inter-regional
Is it necessary for a third party to have to prove that categorically ?
My understanding is that it should be enough to send fair amount of
evidences to the RIR and it has the duty to get in touch with that
organization to gather information and if necessary ask them to justify
if the
Hi
Thanks for the history and better clarification. However it is not still
clear to me if ARIN can, at some point and under which conditions
recover these legacy blocks which look abandoned and have zero signal of
being used or have some organization looking after it, and send to be
On 26/10/2023 19:54, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Almost every member of the AC and Board works for a company that is
either transferring (buy or sell) IPv4 addresses, on the waitlist,
consulting on obtaining number resources or just plain "needers". Most
have some or all their responsibilities
Well said.
I find very weird that people try to put IP brokerage as a normal thing
compared to other usual services that really develop the internet with
evolution and entrepreneurship.
When you buy a router, a server, any network equipment it is yours. You
may do whatever you want with
I think I undertand what Bill is trying to put and for me it is much
simpler.
How one can put his/her name available for candidacy if doesn't participate
on discussions and mainly doesn't properly undertand the mechanics of how
this all works ?
I don't think it needs to be a written requirement
This time strangely I will have to agree with Owen.
This is the forum to discuss this topic that concerns everyone here. It is
very pertinent. Thanks we are having this discussion than not having.
And as far as I saw nothing got out of the controll and everyone is being
able to put up their view
On 27/10/2023 17:24, John Curran wrote:
As an relevant side-note, I will observe that there was discussion during the
PDP update
of requiring that _all_ policy proposals initially start solely as a problem
statement, and
only after that problem statement had been discussed by the community
Hi Bill
Also check other details that may be concerning for example if any of
them have affiliations or connections to any IP brokers or what kind of
proposals that may put in jeopardy ARIN registered resources.
Fernando
On 26/10/2023 04:42, William Herrin wrote:
Howdy,
As I think about
The very existence of PPML is a block and problem for IP brokers to
freely do business due to the restrictions policies developed here
impact their ability to do whatever their wish to fit to their customer
needs.
Last time I saw a IP broker representative speaking to an audience he
said with
ou to make an effort to separate a mere
annoyance and endeavor to put arguments to defend your points and the
discussion can continue fine.
Regards
Fernando
On 26/10/2023 15:06, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Oct 26, 2023, at 09:49, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
The very existence of PPML is a block a
In my humble personal opinion this is the result and natural side-effect
of stimulating things like IP Leasing from those who have a lot of spare
IP Address to those who have been seeking it specially in the times of
IPv4 exhaustion.
Some people, even those who are not directly involved in
Hello Stephen
Although I am not much involved in this discussion, although I commented
I have to say that I often see this type of questioning in the list and
I personally don't see the list exclusively to discuss policies, but
anything that may have to do with them and with this Policy
erizon.com
>
>
>
> [image: Facebook] <http://www.facebook.com/verizon> [image: Twitter]
> <http://twitter.com/verizon> [image: LinkedIn]
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/verizon>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 2:27 PM Fernando Frediani
> wro
Folks, I think everybody agrees that anything here that becomes personal
should not be carried out, but it is important also to understand that
discussions related to Number Resource Policy may or may not necessarily
be of linked to an specific proposal, and in the cases it is not it is
still
Hi John
Thanks for the response back to community.
But let take easier this thing about discussions on ARIN PPML mailing
list. I know some people may not like of find it strange discussions
that are not necessarily and exactly around a given proposal but it is
not necessary to be like that.
Em 25/07/2022 11:34, John Curran escreveu:
I have seen administratively and voluntarily dissolved corporations come
back to life, so ARIN must consider this.
Exactly… It turns out that dissolved isn’t necessarily a permanent state, and
in addition
“dissolved” doesn’t mean that the rights
ANA agrees on that or if a given legacy resource holder wishes to
return it directly to IANA would it be forbidden and directed by IANA to
do to ARIN ?
Fernando
Em 25/07/2022 12:37, John Curran escreveu:
On 25 Jul 2022, at 11:02 AM, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Em 25/07/2022 11:34, John Curran escreveu:
I
mbers
On 24 Jul 2022, at 3:26 PM, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hello
This doesn't look nice, either the way it is written or the way it is
understood by ARIN.
Policy-related ideas and issues can mean a lot of things, including
facts that happen in other RIRs or general Internet Governance area
tha
, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hi John
Thanks for the response back to community.
But let take easier this thing about discussions on ARIN PPML mailing
list. I know some people may not like of find it strange discussions
that are not necessarily and exactly around a given proposal
Although I rarely agree with Owen views I have to say I do in this case.
The situation seems simpler than it look like. It is healthy that
investigations in such cases as conducted independent of too much
formalities.
I have already done similar thing in another situation in another RIR
and
On 15/07/2022 11:04, John Curran wrote:
Hopefully this works out well and any type of information brought to
any RIR in such manner gets investigated and in the worst case
scenario resources get revoked as they should.
No – parties that wish to bring information necessitating a review of
Hello Scott
Could you explain better the arguments you are against in this proposal
or that don't sound valid?
All this proposal does is to make clear make something clear in the
policy text.
If you cannot go to ARIN and justify that you intend to use requested IP
addresses for simple
to someone that has the
ability to get these addresses by themselves via a transfer for example.
Fernando
Regards,
Mike
*From:* ARIN-PPML *On Behalf Of *Fernando
Frediani
*Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2022 1:25 PM
*To:* arin-ppml
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing
l/chat/0/0?users=athomp...@merlin.mb.ca>
*From:*ARIN-PPML *On Behalf Of *Fernando
Frediani
*Sent:* September 11, 2022 10:30 PM
*To:* arin-ppml@arin.net
*Subject:* Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended
Hello Bruce
Thanks for sharing these concerns. Seem reasonable
Hello
There is no such error in the proposal.
This has been checked as being the interpretation staff gives to the
current policy in most RIRs. APNIC is just an example that have
confirmed it publicly a couples of days ago.
You may not find all the very specific words you may wish for in the
and easily gamed, or
onerous, bureaucratic, and will interfere with the legitimate
operation of networks efficiently utilizing their IPv4 space.
-Scott
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 9:32 AM Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hello Scott
Could you explain better the arguments you a
in corporate structure occur
when shifting day to day operations to subsidiaries or sister
corporations, leaving the block assignment with the original holder.
Bruce C
On Sep 9, 2022, at 9:44 AM, Fernando Frediani
wrote:
Hello
There is no such error in the proposal.
This has been
101 - 200 of 239 matches
Mail list logo
