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

[Gugu Dhlamini]

Hi Saul,

That is precisely the problem.

When something gets to last call that doesn’t mean objections don’t matter.
The last call is meant to test unresolved concerns, not to dismiss them
because the proposal has gone far enough through the process.

Saying objections are “copy and paste” doesn’t answer them. If the same
issue is brought up by a few people, then deal with the issue. Just because
you repeat a concern doesn’t make it any less valid.

That's exactly how mandate laundering works: procedure is conflated with
authority, and once a proposal has passed through enough stages,
disagreement is framed as illegitimate, not substantive.

The process shouldn’t generate consent just because some participants are
tired of reading objections.

I am still against it.

Best,
Gugu

On Sun, 19 Jul 2026, 8:34 pm Saul Stein via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

> 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 Systems t/a Envisage Cloud Solutions
> hvisage at hevis.co.za
> GSM/SMS/Signal: +27-84-612-5345
> InstantMessenger: 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>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/edfeb4a6/attachment.html>