[rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) and Amendment of Utilisation in Soft Landing (AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT02)

[Thulisile Mazomba]

Dear Hendrik,

We are talking about Internet policy in the digital era. The use of modern tools to help organise or improve a response does not make the participant artificial, nor does it invalidate the argument.

AFRINIC itself is supporting technological evolution, including IPv6 adoption. Promoting digital transformation of infrastructure while at the same time using the adoption of new technology in participation as an excuse for exclusion would be incongruous.

The right test is simple: Is the argument technically correct, relevant and coming from someone who stands behind it?

Address the policy concerns rather than disqualifying participants for using tools.

Best regards,
Thulisile,
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Hendrik Visage <hvisage at hevis.co.za>
Sent: Sunday, 19 July 2026 20:04:03
To: Thulisile Mazomba <219280444 at mycput.ac.za>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>; rpd-owner at afrinic.net <rpd-owner at afrinic.net>; nishal at controlfreak.co.za <nishal at controlfreak.co.za>; seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) and Amendment of Utilisation in Soft Landing (AFPUB-2026-IPv4-002-DRAFT02)


Dear Thulisile,

Why did you also use an AI to respond?

Claude: `Yes — and it's the same drafting pipeline again, now writing a defense of itself. That's the most interesting thing about this one: the thread has become recursive, and the message quotes my own analysis back while exhibiting the exact markers that analysis described.a

________________________________

Hendrik Visage
Director/Owner
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

On 19 Jul 2026, at 19:39, Thulisile Mazomba wrote:

Dear colleagues,

This discussion has moved away from the proposal and toward questioning who is allowed to object.

Whether someone operates an ASN, uses drafting assistance, is new to the list, or is unfamiliar to long-standing participants does not determine whether their argument is valid. The PDP should examine the substance of an objection, not attempt to infer authorship from writing style or rank participants according to reputation.

Submitting text to another language model does not establish who wrote it, who contributed to it, or whether the person posting it agrees with it. A probability produced by Claude is not evidence of astroturfing. It is an automated opinion about prose.

Hendrik’s own quoted analysis concedes the important point: the distinction between authenticating the creator of an AS-SET and validating its contents is a real objection that still requires an answer. That issue does not disappear because the wording appears polished.

The request to identify which ASNs objectors “represent” also misunderstands participation. I am not claiming to represent every African operator, nor should any individual participant make that claim without authority. I am participating in my own capacity. An ASN is not a voting credential, and operating one does not give its holder a larger mandate over the policy process.

Frank’s road-rule analogy is also misplaced. Governments impose traffic laws through public authority and accept legal accountability for doing so. AFRINIC is a private registry operating a technical database. The existence of a working group does not turn that registry into a legislature or every preferred operational practice into the equivalent of public law.

The question before us remains simple: does this proposal solve the specific harm claimed, and is mandatory registry enforcement the minimum necessary mechanism?

Hierarchical naming may reduce future name collisions. That is a useful property. It does not validate the accuracy of AS-SET membership, prevent incorrect customer-cone data, or make generated filters trustworthy by itself. Those limitations should be assessed honestly rather than buried beneath accusations about who wrote which paragraph.

If the co-chairs believe several objections raise the same substantive issue, they may group them as one issue. That is reasonable. But they should then determine whether the issue has been answered on its merits. They should not discount it because the participants are unfamiliar, share a view, use similar language, or may have used writing tools.

Participation provides evidence, criticism, and warning. Familiarity does not create mandate. Reputation does not replace proof. A mailing list should not become a private club in which established names decide which speakers count.

I remain opposed to the proposal and ask that the discussion return to the proposal’s technical scope, demonstrated benefit, limitations, and proportionality.

Regards,
Thulisile
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260719/0707e42d/attachment.html>