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

[Frank Habicht]

Hi,

inline ...

On 7/19/2026 7:55 PM, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko 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.

Sorry. I'm just trying to ppoint out that I don't consider some argument 
to be good arguments.

> The Policy Development Process should evaluate technical arguments on 
> their merits.

Honestly, I've seen a lot of claimed so-called "technical arguments". I 
haven't seen anything I would call technical arguments from the 
opponents of the policy. Can you give one using technical facts?

[snip]
> I am also concerned by suggestions that contributions should be 
> disregarded simply because of assumptions about how they were written. 

I'm assuming you refer to this:
 >> This also relates to the broader “stability fallacy”: the assumption
 >> that more structure, more policy, or more institutional mechanisms
 >> necessarily create more stability.
 >
 > For those that understand what is proposed, we also understand that
 > this
 > creates more stability and it is not an assumption.
 >
 > Please don't assume that we are assuming.

You see how this was not about "how they were written". It was about 
Gugu Dhlamini calling the argument for the policy an assumption, which 
is incorrect.

It is very uncool to call a technical argument an assumption.
It is also required then to call-out this incorrectness.
And you mixing these up and misrepresenting is also not good.



> If there are factual or technical errors, they should be identified and 
> discussed. That is how consensus is strengthened.

you would have mentioned any factual or technical errors if you would 
have found one. You haven't.

I just have to conclude you don't want to understand.

But the policy process here should know that you didn't have any arguments.

Regards,
Frank
again, all typed myself ;-)