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

Sun Jul 19 19:37:18 UTC 2026

Hi Saul,

Yes, the message was sent twice. That is a posting mistake, not a policy
argument.

Focusing on duplicate delivery while ignoring the substance is exactly how
process starts replacing discussion. Please address the objection itself
rather than using a technical error as a reason to dismiss participation.

Regards,
Gugu

On Sun, 19 Jul 2026, 9:29 pm Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>> ************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/f73a0e8b/attachment-0001.html>