[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 45

Sat Jul 18 19:49:48 UTC 2026

Dear PDWG,

I agree with Asamkele, Gugu, and Tshepo, and I remain opposed to this
proposal.

Responding to objectors one by one does not resolve the common concern they
have raised. A collision between AS-SET labels is not a failure of ASN or
prefix uniqueness, and repeating that characterization does not make it
technically correct.

The proposal still has not demonstrated measurable operational harm, why
voluntary hierarchical naming is insufficient, or why mandatory registry
intervention is the least restrictive solution. Adoption by other RIRs is
relevant, but institutional uniformity is not proof of technical necessity.

A policy process should examine objections on their merits, not treat
repeated disagreement as something to be individually overcome. The
registry should support accurate routing information without converting
every preferred convention into compulsory policy.

I therefore support the objections already raised and maintain my
opposition.

Regards,
Nonhlanhla

On Sat, 18 Jul 2026, 9:46 pm <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:

> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
>         rpd at afrinic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         rpd-request at afrinic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         rpd-owner at afrinic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names
>       for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Hendrik Visage)
>    2. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names
>       for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Asamkele Menzeleli)
>    3. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names
>       for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Gugu Dhlamini)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2026 20:28:16 +0200
> From: Hendrik Visage <hvisage at hevis.co.za>
> To: Asamkele Menzeleli <asamkele.menzeleli18 at maharishinstitute.org>
> Cc: rpd-owner at afrinic.net, rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical
>         Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)
> Message-ID: <6F54C5B9-4C90-42F4-ACFD-6E4C57F5BD66 at hevis.co.za>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> 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-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2026 21:05:38 +0200
> From: Asamkele Menzeleli <asamkele.menzeleli18 at maharishinstitute.org>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Cc: rpd-owner at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical
>         Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)
> Message-ID:
>         <CAP3o3_aaSmMp7onNPHESjeoAScNZCZbg_FFjed=
> Yxp+MhGJFpQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2026 21:45:03 +0200
> From: Gugu Dhlamini <gugudhlamini343 at gmail.com>
> To: "asamkele.menzeleli18 at maharishinstitute.org"
>         <asamkele.menzeleli18 at maharishinstitute.org>,  "
> hvisage at hevis.co.za"
>         <hvisage at hevis.co.za>, rpd at afrinic.net, rpd-owner at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical
>         Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CADMrvbPw1Dyu7JU9unFWz4zTZSd4QGQdMup_ibDd9nKcWwuP-w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 45
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260718/c2809a09/attachment-0001.html>