Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 80
Onica Makwakwa
onica at globaldigitalinclusion.org
Mon Jul 20 08:42:00 UTC 2026
Greetings,
Please switch me to a daily digest.
Thanks,
Onica
On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 8:51 AM <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: 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
> ************************************
>
--
Onica N. Makwakwa
Executive Director
p +27 63 237 3050 (WhatsApp/Signal)
@ AfroDiva
w globaldigitalinclusion.org
<http://globaldigitalinclusion.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/91d1df59/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list