[rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)

[Hendrik Visage]

Hello Asamkele,
Respectfully, this proposal does exactly what you're asking for — it 
maintains uniqueness. Flat AS-SET names can be registered by anyone, so 
two operators can create the same name and there is no way to tell 
afterwards which ASN it belongs to. That is a uniqueness failure in the 
registry's own data, and fixing it is squarely within the mandate you 
describe, not an expansion of it. The proposal adds no governance layer: 
it applies only to newly created AS-SETs, leaves existing objects 
untouched, and doesn't extend to route-sets or anything else. And the 
operational necessity is already demonstrated — APNIC, RIPE, ARIN, and 
LACNIC have all implemented hierarchical AS-SET naming, which would 
leave AFRINIC as the only registry whose IRR data still permits name 
collisions.
Regards

---
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 17 Jul 2026, at 19:26, Asamkele Menzeleli wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> I object to this proposal.
>
> I also agree with Nonhlanhla's point regarding mandate laundering. We
> should be careful not to confuse policy development with expanding
> institutional authority.
>
> Policies should reflect demonstrated operational realities and 
> technical
> necessity. They should not become governance mechanisms that gradually
> enlarge the registry's role beyond maintaining uniqueness, accurate
> records, and operational coordination.
>
> A registry should record reality, not create new layers of governance
> through policy.
>
> Regards,
> Asamkele Menzeleli
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260718/cd333640/attachment.html>