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

[Fundiswa Nadia Maseko]

Dear Ben,

Thank you for your response.

Respectfully, I believe it is more productive to address the arguments
themselves than to make assumptions about the people presenting them or the
tools they may have used.

If you believe the objections are technically incorrect, I would appreciate
it if you could identify which specific points you disagree with. For
example, do you disagree that hierarchical naming authenticates object
creation rather than the accuracy of object membership? Or do you believe
the proposal has demonstrated that mandatory naming is the least
restrictive solution available?

Those are technical questions that can be examined and debated. Dismissing
opposing views as "AI bots" does not, on its own, explain why the arguments
are wrong.
I believe the PDWG benefits most when participants engage with the
substance of each other's reasoning, regardless of how a contribution was
drafted.


Kind regards,
Fundiswa Nadia Maseko

On Sun, 19 Jul 2026, 19:13 Ben Roberts - AfriNIC, <ben.roberts at afrinic.net>
wrote:

> Fundiswa,
> But the AI bots opposing the AS-SET policy aren’t making technical
> arguments. They are just regurgitating and re-using the same script. None
> of them seem to know or care what an AS-SET is, or what network owners use
> them for.
>
> Cheers,
> Ben
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 19 Jul 2026, at 17:56, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 
>
> *Dear PDWG,*
>
> I have been following this discussion with interest, and I would like to
> express my concern about the direction it has taken.
>
> The Policy Development Process should evaluate technical arguments on
> their merits. Whether a participant drafted a message unaided, received
> editorial assistance, or used modern writing tools does not determine
> whether the reasoning is sound. Speculating about authorship instead of
> addressing the substance risks distracting the Working Group from the
> policy questions before it.
>
> I am also concerned by suggestions that contributions should be
> disregarded simply because of assumptions about how they were written. If
> there are factual or technical errors, they should be identified and
> discussed. That is how consensus is strengthened.
>
> The questions raised by several participants remain legitimate subjects
> for technical debate: whether the proposal has demonstrated operational
> necessity, whether the proposed intervention is proportionate, and whether
> less restrictive alternatives have been adequately considered.
>
> I therefore encourage all participants to continue engaging with the
> substance of the proposal while maintaining the respectful and professional
> standards expected within the PDWG.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Fundiswa Nadia Maseko
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260719/94acb2a2/attachment.html>