[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 81

Mon Jul 20 14:46:22 UTC 2026

Hi All,

I agree with what Saul has said here.  I also want to make some notes on
rough consensus because reading through recent messages, some participants
seem unaware of how rough consensus is achieved.

Firstly -  Rough Consensus as used in the RIR system largely stems from
rough consensus as defined in RFC7282 (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7282)

The essence of this is that there are two basic principles: First,
objections are given more weight than support; second, objections must be
grounded in fact and evidence.  If 100 people support something, but there
is one strong, evidence-backed technical argument against it, that issue
must be addressed.  Note: The issue does not have to be "fixed"; however,
it must be considered and the working group must agree that the issue is
not substantive enough to block consensus.

Regarding the ongoing last call for the as-set naming policy, I support it
because I believe it is a sensible safeguard.  Second, after reading the
objections related to AfriNIC's institutional mandate and scope creep,
reviewing the current AfriNIC bylaws shows this objection doesn't stand up
to scrutiny.

Section 3.4 of the bylaws as currently written, makes it clear that policy
promoting common-sense good practice for the benefit of the African
internet community as a whole, is very much within AfriNIC's scope.  I do
not believe that this policy infringes on any institution's right to
operate its network as it sees fit.  It merely provides a safeguard.

One of the objections I saw stated that the onus is on the authors to prove
that their proposal cannot be addressed via other means.  This again, is
inaccurate.  There are many ways to accomplish the same thing, in the
standards world in particular there are often multiple standards that
accomplish the same goal.  I would argue that it is the opponents who have
a duty to prove that the proposal may cause undue harm to the community, or
is outside of the scope of the PDP (or AfriNIC's mandate as defined in the
bylaws).

Since there has been no such objection grounded in facts or evidence, I
cannot see how such objections would withstand the rough consensus test.

Thanks

Andrew

On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 11:06 AM Saul Stein via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:

> 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 <
> 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>
> *Date: *Monday, 20 July 2026 at 09:38
> *To: *rpd at afrinic.net <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> 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. 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>
> To: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>, "rpd at afrinic.net"
>         <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Cc: "rpd-owner at afrinic.ne" <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
> >
>
> 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>
> 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-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 07:34:21 +0000
> From: Tshepo Masuku <TshepoMasuku26 at hotmail.com>
> To: "rpd at afrinic.net" <rpd at afrinic.net>, "geier at geier.ne.tz"
>         <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
> >
>
> 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
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 81
> ************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260720/84ea59df/attachment-0001.html>