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

[Mphoentle Mokheseng]

Dear PDWG,

The discussion is drifting away from policy analysis and toward deciding which participants deserve to be heard. That is not a legitimate consensus test.

Frank, a proposal containing a problem statement does not remove the proponents’ burden to show that the proposed remedy is necessary, effective, proportionate, and preferable to less restrictive alternatives. Describing a problem and proving a mandatory solution are different tasks.

Hendrik, the fact that operators support a proposal does not convert their preference into authority. Operators provide important evidence, but they do not become the principals of every affected network merely because they participate in the working group. A proposal originating from an operator can still expand institutional control.

The comparison with traffic laws is also incorrect. Governments exercise authority through public law, established legal mandates, representation, judicial review, and public accountability. AFRINIC is a private registry, and the PDWG exists to develop technical policy through open consensus. The existence of a discussion forum does not, in itself, confer legislative authority or justify expanding registry intervention beyond what has been demonstrated to be operationally necessary.

Questions about whether contributors use an IRR, operate an ASN, are familiar names, or may have used drafting tools do not answer their objections. Writing style is not a technical metric. An AI-generated opinion about another message is not evidence of astroturfing, and repeated objections do not become invalid because their reasoning overlaps.

The co-chairs may reasonably group similar objections as one substantive concern. They may not disregard that concern without determining whether it has actually been answered.

The unresolved point remains straightforward: the proposal may prevent future flat-name collisions, but its supporters must still show the exact operational harm addressed, the scope of the benefit, the limitations of the remedy, and why mandatory registry enforcement is the minimum necessary approach.

Consensus is not the absence of unfamiliar voices. It is not the agreement of recognised insiders. It is not achieved by asking that inconvenient contributions be disregarded.

Please return the discussion to the proposal.

I remain opposed.

Regards,
Mphoentle
Disclaimer This email and the information contained herein are Advtech Ltd confidential and are protected by law. Please navigate to our website for more information https://www.groupadvtech.com. Use of this information or this email by any person for any purposes other than that for which it is intended is prohibited and may result in civil and/or criminal liability. This email is not to be shared with any 3rd parties not included within this email, without the written consent of its Author. If you have received this message in error, please notify Advtech immediately, telephone number +27 11 676 8000. Advtech leads the private sector in the fields of education and resourcing, contributing meaningfully towards the sustainable development of human capacity in South Africa.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/7779e2c7/attachment.html>