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

[Frank Habicht]

Dear whole PDWG,

should there be a requirement to have read the problem statement at least?

Phrases like "The burden of proof should therefore rest with proponents" 
seem to suggest there was not problem statement in the proposal, which 
is not correct.

I hope this kind of "contribution" can be disregarded.

Regards,
Frank Habicht


On 7/17/2026 9:03 PM, tshepo mavhungu wrote:
> Dear Policy Development Working Group,
> 
> I would like to express my concerns regarding the proposal to introduce 
> hierarchical naming for new AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02).
> 
> I agree with the concerns raised by Fundiswa, Thandeka, and Nonhlanhla 
> during the discussion.
> 
> At first glance, this proposal appears to be a minor technical 
> enhancement. However, policy changes should be evaluated not only on 
> their immediate operational benefits, but also on whether they expand 
> institutional complexity or shift the role of the registry beyond its 
> core function.
> 
> The primary role of the registry is to maintain an accurate, neutral, 
> and reliable resource registry and associated data infrastructure. 
> Policy should focus on preserving the integrity of the ledger and 
> enabling operational continuity, rather than continuously introducing 
> new structures that may increase dependence on registry-defined conventions.
> 
> One concern is that proposals of this nature, while well-intentioned, 
> can contribute to what has been described as “mandate laundering”: the 
> gradual expansion of institutional influence through incremental policy 
> changes that appear administrative or technical in isolation, but 
> collectively increase the scope of centralized governance over network 
> operations and coordination practices.
> 
> The Internet’s resilience comes from minimizing unnecessary dependencies 
> and preserving operator autonomy. If hierarchical AS-SET naming is 
> genuinely required for operational efficiency, the proposal should 
> clearly demonstrate that existing mechanisms are insufficient and that 
> the benefits outweigh the costs of additional policy complexity. 
> Convenience alone is not a sufficient basis for expanding registry- 
> managed structures.
> 
> This also relates to the broader “stability fallacy”: the assumption 
> that more structure, more policy, or more institutional mechanisms 
> necessarily create more stability. In many cases, long-term stability is 
> better served by simplicity, interoperability, and clear separation 
> between registry administration and operator decision-making.
> 
> The burden of proof should therefore rest with proponents to demonstrate 
> that this proposal addresses a concrete operational problem that cannot 
> be solved through existing practices, voluntary coordination, or tooling 
> improvements outside the policy framework.
> 
> For these reasons, I do not support the proposal in its current form and 
> encourage the Working Group to prioritise minimalism, operational 
> continuity, and the protection of the registry’s core mandate.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Tshepo Mavhungu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd