[rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names, for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02), Re: RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 42

[Nia Petronella]

Dear Hendrick,

Your questions appear to confuse participation with representation.

I participate in the PDWG as an individual stakeholder expressing a policy
position. An open policy process cannot invite individual participation and
then demand that every objection be backed by an institutional constituency
before it is considered legitimate.

A participant may provide evidence, technical judgment, operational
experience, warning, or objection. None of these requires the participant
to claim authority over a continent or community. Indeed, claiming to
represent “African networks” without direct authorization would be a far
more serious legitimacy problem than speaking in an individual capacity.

The use of a private or unfamiliar email address does not prove
astroturfing. Similar conclusions are also not evidence of coordinated
misconduct. When several participants identify the same defect in a
proposal, similarity may simply reflect that the defect is obvious. An
allegation of astroturfing requires evidence, not suspicion based on
identity, wording, or repeated opposition.

On the proposal itself, the fact that other RIRs enforce a practice and
that MANRS advocates it does not establish a mandate for AFRINIC to enforce
it. Advocacy is not authority. Adoption elsewhere is not proof of
necessity. A desirable operational practice does not automatically belong
in the mandatory registry layer.

The correct test is whether the proposal protects a technical invariant
that running networks require, such as uniqueness, registry accuracy,
security integrity, or operational continuity. It must also show that
compulsory enforcement is necessary, that voluntary adoption is
insufficient, and that the administrative and operational costs are
proportionate.

Keeping records clean is valuable. Giving the registry wider enforcement
power is a separate question. The registry may support good routing
practice, publish guidance, and provide useful tools. It should not convert
every recommended practice into an enforceable obligation merely because
another institution considers it beneficial.

The burden remains on the proposal’s supporters to demonstrate why operator
judgment and voluntary implementation are inadequate. Questioning the
identity or affiliations of objectors does not satisfy that burden and does
not answer their arguments.

I therefore remain opposed to the proposal.

Kind regards,
Nonhlanhla

On Sat, 18 Jul 2026, 4:33 pm Hendrik Visage <hvisage at hevis.co.za> wrote:

> So Nia,
>
> The first question that comes in my mind: Which AFRICAN network and
> organizations do you represent?
> AfriNIC ORG handles? The use of anonymous Emails puts a real question mark
> and does enhance the astrturfing claims.
>
> The 2nd question: When Other RIRs are enforcing it, MANRS are advocating
> it, and it is a good for the Internet/etc. and for running proper networks
> to be a good netizen, why the objections other than vague similar
> objections?by NOT enforcing it, we, AfriNIC are playing in the hands of
> those that does and can use AS-sets in less”good-for-the-internet” ways. By
> Enforcing it for new AS-SETS, it just keeps things properly clean from my,
> being an operator’s point of view.
> ------------------------------
>
> Hendrik Visage
> Director/Owner
> HeViS.Co Systems t/a Envisage Cloud Solutions
> hvisage at hevis.co.za
> GSM/SMS/Signal: +27-84-612-5345
> InstantMessenger: https://t.me/hvisage
>
> On 18 Jul 2026, at 12:44, Nia Petronella wrote:
>
> Dear PDWG,
>
> I agree with Thandeka and remain opposed to this proposal.
>
> The attempt to dismiss similar objections as “astroturfing” does not
> answer
> the substance of those objections. Different participants may
> independently
> reach the same conclusion when a proposal introduces requirements that are
> not supported by demonstrated operational necessity. Similarity of
> position
> is not evidence of improper coordination.
>
> The relevant question is not who used comparable language, but whether the
> proposal protects a genuine technical invariant such as registry accuracy,
> uniqueness, security, or operational continuity. If it does not, the
> matter
> should remain with operators and voluntary operational practice.
>
> Participation should be assessed by the quality of the argument, not
> invalidated because several people object on the same principled grounds.
> A
> mailing list should discuss policy, not police conformity of expression.
>
> For these reasons, I support Thandeka’s objection and maintain my
> opposition to the proposal.
>
> Kind regards,
> Nonhlanhla
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260718/1a676c4f/attachment.html>