Search RPD Archives
[rpd] Subject: Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)
Thulisile Mazomba
219280444 at mycput.ac.za
Mon Jul 20 07:38:15 UTC 2026
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
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: rpd-request at afrinic.net <rpd-request at afrinic.net>
Sent: Monday, 20 July 2026 08:50:55
To: rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 80
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: RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 76 (Frank Habicht)
2. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical Names
for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Frank Habicht)
3. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names
for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Frank Habicht)
4. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names
for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Thandeka Mseleku)
5. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical Names
for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Daniel Schroder)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:25:52 +0300
From: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 76
Message-ID: <a8fbf2f5-680a-4fe1-893e-e805b08bbcb3 at geier.ne.tz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Hi
On 7/20/2026 1:17 AM, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko wrote:
> I disagree with your conclusion that opponents have presented no
> technical arguments.
Please name one.
Frank
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:36:00 +0300
From: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
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)
Message-ID: <8b2ddf81-edd0-4c6a-97c3-46be5634ea04 at geier.ne.tz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
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
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:58:22 +0300
From: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
To: 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: <3e091d61-af57-4543-bebf-402a7fbc937f at geier.ne.tz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Hi,
inline...
On 7/19/2026 9:38 PM, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko wrote:
> Dear Hendrik,
>
> Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
>
> I think we actually agree on one important point: hierarchical naming
> authenticates who creates the object,
can we also agree that this is a good thing?
> but it does not guarantee that the
> contents of the object are accurate.
I agree with that.
Also, please note: noone claimed it does that.
This proposal is not the perfect solution which guarantees accuracy.
There are also many other problems this proposal does not solve.....
> That was the distinction I was
> trying to make.
So the proposal is an improvement, right?
So should we adopt it?
Since AfriNIC does operate an IRR, do we want AfriNIC to do that in the
best possible way?
> Where we still differ is on whether that justifies making the naming
> convention mandatory.
I tried to explain with the AS-GOOGLE example - if we don't make it
mandatory, collisions may be created. Actually by anyone in the world.
> I understand your position that this is the
> narrowest solution available, but I'm not yet convinced that less
> restrictive alternatives have been ruled out.
I don't think it's possible to prove to you that there are no less
restrictive alternatives. But if there are, I think it's possible for
you to show us.
> I still think that point
> deserves more discussion.
And we should start to clarify where the "burden of proof" is ;-)
> I also don't believe that the fact that other RIRs have adopted the same
> approach automatically means AFRINIC must do so. It's useful context,
> but I don't think it replaces the need to show why this is necessary for
> our own policy process.
About the necessity:
Can we agree that collisions happen, that hey are bad, that they have
let to operational problems?
> I'm not trying to oppose operational improvements. I'm simply asking
> whether a mandatory policy is the only way to achieve the intended
> outcome.
If we can find a better way, we can use it.
If we can't find a better way, I think we should use this proposal.
Isn't this how this choice should work?
Regards,
Frank
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 08:06:34 +0200
From: Thandeka Mseleku <mselekuthandeka80 at gmail.com>
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Cc: rpd-owner at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical
Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)
Message-ID:
<CA+mVb0=S0D4RO7rbS-CVSP0_3wntWb0H5AXTf4tqHkV-s974fA at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 08:49:53 +0200
From: Daniel Schroder <daniel.schroder 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:
<CAMvWrAvBC-szp2ueFznaD9QMCsQ=4qZNniduoG473soQVWdKBw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Simple: The dog wanted a bone as usual.
AI: As is customary, the canine harbored an insatiable desire for an
osseous structure.
Simple: Tom ordered pizza.
AI: Thomas commissioned the preparation of an Italian flatbread adorned
with melted cheese and savory toppings.
Simple: We need one more document to complete your file.
AI: Additional documentation is an absolute prerequisite to finalize your
comprehensive dossier.
If everyones is looking at their watches during a meeting, you missing the
point which is getting to the point.
Having language models influence input into policy changes from
participants who rely on those LLMs for the simple objective of being heard
or taken seriously is going to dissuade actual progress because there are
other matters to attend to with policy being shifted to the backbench and
your efforts effectively ignored, or your pearls lost in the mud. -daniel
On Sun, Jul 19, 2026 at 9:38?PM Gugu Dhlamini <gugudhlamini343 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260720/ef93f424/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 80
************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/4f3bfae5/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list