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

[Thandeka Mseleku]

Dear colleagues,

The discussion is now being diverted from the proposal into speculation
about writing style, drafting tools, and who may have assisted whom.

That is not a sound basis for policy assessment.

An LLM’s opinion about whether a message resembles another message is not
evidence of authorship, coordination, or astroturfing. It is merely another
generated interpretation. Feeding text into Claude and quoting a
probability back to the list does not establish who wrote the text, who
agrees with it, or whether the argument is valid.

Frank suggests that contributions should be disregarded because they refer
to the burden of proof even though the proposal contains a problem
statement. That is a misunderstanding. A problem statement identifies a
concern. It does not automatically prove that the proposed remedy is
necessary, sufficient, proportionate, or the least restrictive available
response.

Those are different questions.

The proposal may accurately describe risks associated with flat AS-SET
names. Objectors are still entitled to ask whether mandatory hierarchical
naming addresses the full problem, whether the benefit has been measured,
whether residual risks remain, and whether central enforcement is justified.

The repeated focus on familiar wording also proves very little.
Participants reading the same thread may naturally respond to the same
claims. People may agree with one another. They may adopt terminology
already introduced in the discussion. Similarity of argument is not proof
of common authorship, just as familiarity of names is not proof of
correctness.

The proper response to repeated objections is simple: identify the common
substantive issue and answer it once, clearly and completely. If the
objection is that hierarchical naming authenticates the creator of an
object but does not validate its contents, then address that distinction.
If the objection concerns the scope of mandatory registry authority,
explain why compulsion is indispensable. If the objection concerns
proportionality, provide the evidence.

Trying to disqualify the speakers does not answer the argument.

Participation in the PDWG should not depend on being a recognised operator,
representing an ASN, writing in an informal style, or avoiding editorial
assistance. Participants contribute evidence, criticism, experience, and
warning. They do not need permission from an established procedural class
before their concerns may be considered.

Nor should the PDP confuse process with mandate. A proposal does not become
technically necessary merely because it has supporters, a problem
statement, or precedent elsewhere. The process must still test the rule
against operational reality.

The registry should remain a narrow coordination layer. It may protect
uniqueness, maintain accurate records, and support routing-related
services. It should not acquire broader authority simply because objections
are inconvenient or because regular participants prefer a particular
convention.

I therefore ask that the discussion return to the policy itself.

The questions remain:

What exact failure does the proposal prevent?

What evidence shows the scale of that failure?

What risks remain after hierarchical naming is imposed?

Why are less restrictive technical mechanisms insufficient?

How will success be measured?

Until those questions are answered, dismissing objections because of
writing style is not consensus-building. It is avoidance.

Regards,
Thandeka
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/8854dcc4/attachment.html>