Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

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

Fundiswa Nadia Maseko fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 19 19:28:38 UTC 2026 

Thank you for pointing that out.

The two emails were intended for different purposes. The first was a direct
response to Hendrik's points, while the second was addressed to the broader
discussion, including your comments and the wider issue that had developed
on the mailing list.

I understand they were sent close together, which may have made them appear
to be duplicates, but they were intended as separate responses.

Kind regards,

Fundiswa Nadia Maseko



On Sun, 19 Jul 2026, 21:20 Saul Stein, <saul at enetworks.co.za> wrote:

> Hi
>
> you have now posted the email twice 7 minutes apart…
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Sunday, 19 July 2026 20:46
> *To:* rpd at afrinic.net
> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal – Hierarchical
> Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)
>
>
>
> Dear Hendrik, Saul, and colleagues,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your responses.
>
>
>
> I would also like to address the recurring comments about AI-generated
> contributions.
>
>
>
> Whether someone uses AI to improve grammar, structure, or clarity does
> not, in itself, determine whether their arguments are valid. AI only works
> with the information and instructions provided by the person using it. Many
> people use it as a writing assistant to communicate their ideas more
> clearly, just as others may ask a colleague to proofread or edit a draft
> before sending it.
>
>
>
> For that reason, I do not believe the discussion should focus on how a
> message was written, but rather on whether the technical reasoning is
> correct or incorrect.
>
>
>
> With regard to the proposal itself, I appreciate Hendrik's direct answers.
> However, simply answering "yes" or "no" does not, by itself, explain the
> technical reasoning behind those conclusions. It would be helpful to
> understand why the proposal is considered the least restrictive solution
> and how the identified operational benefits outweigh the additional policy
> requirements. That explanation would assist everyone in evaluating the
> proposal on its technical merits.
>
>
>
> I believe the PDWG is strongest when differing views are examined through
> technical discussion supported by evidence, rather than assumptions about
> who wrote a message or what tools they may have used.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Fundiswa Nadia Maseko
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2026, 20:34 , <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:
>
> Send RPD mailing list submissions to
>         rpd at afrinic.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         rpd-request at afrinic.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         rpd-owner at afrinic.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ?  Hierarchical Names
>       for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Hendrik Visage)
>    2. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ?  Hierarchical Names
>       for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Saul Stein)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2026 20:25:00 +0200
> From: Hendrik Visage <hvisage at hevis.co.za>
> 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)
> Message-ID: <24327C8E-E411-4D2F-BE55-F250691CD720 at hevis.co.za>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> 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
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260719/3805216e/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2026 18:34:04 +0000
> From: Saul Stein <saul at enetworks.co.za>
> To: Hendrik Visage <hvisage at hevis.co.za>, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko
>         <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com>
> Cc: "rpd at afrinic.net" <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ?  Hierarchical
>         Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)
> Message-ID:
>         <
> JNAP275MB125812327DC4FFF2404C216E8EC42 at JNAP275MB1258.ZAFP275.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 71
> ************************************
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260719/400a7bf8/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the RPD mailing list