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

[Saul Stein]

Dear all,
Well, I have just finished my popcorn… sadly there wasn’t enough to read the bombardment of emails, so I didn’t.

What I did see though, was a number of non-original / cvopy and paste objections. Not only that, but more importantly, they do not raise any valid concerns about the proposal that has reached final call.

So with that in mind, I fully support this proposal.

I’d have to be part of a community group where you have to have a valid NIC to post…

Regards
Saul


From: Hendrik Visage via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
Sent: Sunday, 19 July 2026 20:25
To: Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal – Hierarchical Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)


Dear Fundiswa,

“Has the proposal demonstrated mandatory naming is the least restrictive solution?" — Yes,

"Do you disagree that hierarchical naming authenticates object creation rather than membership accuracy?" — No.

These are the specific answers requested.
If you still oppose this proposal, we ask that you engage these answers first — in particular the deployment-coordination asymmetry raised — instead of repeating the original objections without technical substances

________________________________

Hendrik Visage
Director/Owner
HeViS.Co<http://HeViS.Co> Systems t/a Envisage Cloud Solutions
hvisage at hevis.co.za<mailto:hvisage at hevis.co.za>
GSM/SMS/Signal: +27-84-612-5345
InstantMessenger: https://t.me/hvisage<https://t.me/hvisage>

On 19 Jul 2026, at 19:54, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko wrote:
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260719/f1cb5a98/attachment-0001.html>