Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 81

Saul Stein saul at enetworks.co.za
Mon Jul 20 08:05:43 UTC 2026 

Actually, one’s knowledge and experience is very relevant.

Running and safeguarding the internet landscape is a very practical thing. Something that those who do, do so on a daily basis.

People who are commenting on the practicality of running the internet and routing protocols and who have no experience in it or are even involved in it, might well have some insights to provide.
HOWEVER, they then need to provide fact to base comments where the technical community who are practically involved in the process are saying otherwise.

Simply repeating the same narrative which goes against global trends and those that use it raise questions about their intentions.



From: Nia Petronella <nonhlanhlapetronella85 at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, 20 July 2026 09:46
To: ben.roberts at afrinic.net; rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 81

Hi Ben,

Participants may introduce themselves if they choose, but an introduction should not become a condition for having an argument considered.

This is an open policy forum, not a membership interview. Contributions should be assessed on their substance, not on how familiar the speaker is or how long they have been present.

Regards,
Nonhlanhla

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026, 9:41 am ben.roberts at frinic.net<mailto:ben.roberts at frinic.net> <ben.roberts at afrinic.net<mailto:ben.roberts at afrinic.net>> wrote:
Nonhlanhla,

Perhaps the new participants would like to introduce themselves, with some context of their new interest in IP address policy making?

Kind Regards,
Ben

From: Nia Petronella <nonhlanhlapetronella85 at gmail.com<mailto:nonhlanhlapetronella85 at gmail.com>>
Date: Monday, 20 July 2026 at 09:38
To: rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 81
Get Outlook for Mac<https://aka.ms/GetOutlookForMac>
Dear PDWG,

A pattern is becoming clear: familiar names are treated as authoritative, while newer participants are questioned, graded, or dismissed.

That is gatekeeping, not consensus.

An open process should test arguments, not reputations. Participation is evidence and objection; being well known does not create a mandate to decide whose voice counts.

Regards,
Nonhlanhla

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026, 9:35 am <rpd-request at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>> wrote:
Send RPD mailing list submissions to
        rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd<https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        rpd-request at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd-request at afrinic.net>

You can reach the person managing the list at
        rpd-owner at afrinic.net<mailto: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. Subject: Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical
      Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Thulisile Mazomba)
   2. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical Names
      for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Tshepo Masuku)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:24:43 +0000
From: Thulisile Mazomba <219280444 at mycput.ac.za<mailto:219280444 at mycput.ac.za>>
To: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz<mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz>>, "rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>"
        <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
Cc: "rpd-owner at afrinic.ne<mailto:rpd-owner at afrinic.ne>" <rpd-owner at afrinic.ne<mailto:rpd-owner at afrinic.ne>>
Subject: [rpd] Subject: Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ?
        Hierarchical Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)
Message-ID:
        <GVXPR04MB12291FB9551CD3D0ADB433FE6D1C32 at GVXPR04MB12291.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com<mailto:GVXPR04MB12291FB9551CD3D0ADB433FE6D1C32 at GVXPR04MB12291.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

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<mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz>>
Sent: Monday, 20 July 2026 06:36:00
To: Thulisile Mazomba <219280444 at mycput.ac.za<mailto:219280444 at mycput.ac.za>>; rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>
Cc: rpd-owner at afrinic.ne<mailto:rpd-owner at afrinic.ne> <rpd-owner at afrinic.ne<mailto: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-0001.html<https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/a7286772/attachment-0001.html>>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:34:21 +0000
From: Tshepo Masuku <TshepoMasuku26 at hotmail.com<mailto:TshepoMasuku26 at hotmail.com>>
To: "rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>" <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd at afrinic.net>>, "geier at geier.ne.tz<mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz>"
        <geier at geier.ne.tz<mailto:geier at geier.ne.tz>>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical
        Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)
Message-ID:
        <VI2PR04MB10545520811A7499ACFFB1239CAC32 at VI2PR04MB10545.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com<mailto:VI2PR04MB10545520811A7499ACFFB1239CAC32 at VI2PR04MB10545.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi Frank,

You keep positioning yourself as the referee of which objections count.

That is not your role. Participants are allowed to question whether a useful change belongs in mandatory policy. Dismissing those concerns instead of answering them turns discussion into gatekeeping.

A policy room may debate. It does not grant any participant authority to police dissent.

I remain opposed.

Regards,
Tshepo

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/0cd4be0c/attachment.html<https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/0cd4be0c/attachment.html>>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
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>


------------------------------

End of RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 81
************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/c2e0159a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the RPD mailing list