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

[Gugu Dhlamini]

Dear PDWG,

I agree with Asamkele and disagree with Hendrik’s perspective.

This is substantially the same argument Hendrik made in response to Tshepo:
that because a naming collision can occur, the issue must therefore be
treated as a failure of registry uniqueness and made subject to mandatory
policy. That conclusion does not follow.

A collision between AS-SET labels is not the same as duplicate allocation
of an ASN or IP prefix. The underlying number resources remain unique. What
is being discussed is the naming and interpretation of an operational
routing object. That may justify better tools, warnings, validation,
documentation, or voluntary hierarchical naming, but it does not
automatically justify expanding mandatory registry authority.

There is also an important ethical question here. Policy power should not
be enlarged merely because the proposed requirement appears useful, tidy,
or widely adopted elsewhere. The burden lies with those seeking compulsion
to show actual harm, necessity, proportionality, and the failure of less
restrictive alternatives. Operators should not be forced to surrender
discretion simply because an institution prefers uniformity.

The fact that four other RIRs adopted a similar convention is not proof
that AFRINIC must do the same. Institutional repetition is not technical
necessity, and participation in the PDWG should not become a ritual for
ratifying choices already made elsewhere.

The registry should preserve number-resource uniqueness, registry accuracy,
and operational continuity. It should not stretch those concepts until
every preferred operational convention becomes mandatory policy.

For these reasons, I support Asamkele’s objection and remain opposed to the
proposal.

Regards,
Nonhlanhla
On Sat, 18 Jul 2026, 9:08 pm Asamkele Menzeleli <
asamkele.menzeleli18 at maharishinstitute.org> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260718/7d3628bc/attachment-0001.html>