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

[Asamkele Menzeleli]

Dear Hendrik,

I disagree with your characterization.

A collision between two AS-SET names is not the same as a failure of
Internet number-resource uniqueness. The uniqueness function of the
registry concerns ASNs, prefixes, proof of control and accurate
registration of those resources. An AS-SET is an operational routing-policy
object. Confusing the naming convention of that object with the uniqueness
of the underlying number resource expands the meaning of “uniqueness” far
beyond its proper technical scope.

The fact that two operators may choose the same flat label may justify
better tooling, clearer warnings, stronger validation or voluntary
hierarchical naming. It does not automatically justify a mandatory policy
rule.

That distinction is precisely the concern I raised. Institutional authority
often expands by redefining a useful administrative preference as a
technical necessity. Once every data-quality issue is described as a
uniqueness failure, there is effectively no limit to what may be brought
into mandatory registry policy.

The proposal’s limited scope does not answer that concern. A new
enforcement power does not cease to be enforcement merely because it
applies prospectively or begins with one object type. The correct test is
whether the rule is indispensable to preserving the operation of running
networks, and whether a less restrictive mechanism cannot achieve the same
outcome.

You also repeat that the other four RIRs have implemented hierarchical
naming. That demonstrates institutional adoption elsewhere. It does not
demonstrate that AFRINIC operators have authorized the same rule, that
actual routing failures in this region require it, or that voluntary and
technical alternatives are inadequate. Four registries making the same
choice is not a substitute for evidence.

A registry should record operational reality accurately and provide
operators with tools to manage routing information safely. It should not
turn every preferred convention into mandatory governance merely because
uniformity looks tidy from the registry side.

My objection therefore remains. The proposal has not shown that compulsory
hierarchical naming is necessary to protect number-resource uniqueness, nor
that the registry should extend its mandatory policy authority into this
area.

Regards,
Asamkele Menzeleli
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260718/e46cf6c9/attachment.html>