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

[Thulisile Mazomba]

Hi Frank,

An improvement is not automatically a justification for mandatory policy.

The question is whether the benefit is significant enough, proven enough, and proportionate enough to place in the registry’s compulsory layer. Saying “it helps” does not answer that.

And no, raising those questions does not mean the objection came first. It means policy power should be tested before it is expanded.

I remain opposed.

Regards,
Thulisile
________________________________
From: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
Sent: Monday, 20 July 2026 06:36:00
To: Thulisile Mazomba <219280444 at mycput.ac.za>; rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>
Cc: rpd-owner at afrinic.ne <rpd-owner at afrinic.ne>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)

Hi,

On 7/19/2026 11:29 PM, Thulisile Mazomba wrote:
>
> Hi Frank,
>
> You appear to be treating your disagreement with an objection as proof
> that no technical objection exists.
>
> The proposal prevents one naming collision. It does not establish the
> correctness of the routing data attached to that name,

The proposal does not fix *all* problems. and it doesn't claim to do so.
It creates an improvement.
I don't agree that it is ok to object just because this proposal does
not fix *all* problems.

Do you agree it provides improvements?

> nor prove that
> mandatory registry control is the only proportionate remedy.

it's not intended to prove that.

>
> Those are technical and policy questions. Declaring them invalid does
> not resolve them.
They are not good reasons against the proposal.

But some people maybe want to be against the proposal first and then are
looking for "questions".

Frank

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/a7286772/attachment.html>