[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 101

[Nia Petronella]

Dear Omo and Ben,

This discussion is becoming an authorship tribunal instead of a policy
process.

A mailing list may assess whether a contribution is relevant, evidenced,
repetitive, or abusive. It has no mandate to police a participant’s private
drafting tools or demand that unfamiliar contributors prove how every
sentence was produced. A real person who submits a position, stands behind
it, and accepts responsibility for it remains the participant.

Templates, translation tools, editors, and AI assistance do not transfer
authorship or judgment to the tool. The tool does not vote, object, or bear
responsibility. The person does.

If several messages raise the same objection, the co-chairs can group them
as one issue and evaluate it once. That is sensible process management.
What they should not do is erase the objection, interrogate the writers, or
treat familiar names as more legitimate than unfamiliar ones.

This is precisely where participation can be laundered into mandate:
established participants begin by asking who wrote the message, then who
the person represents, then whether the person is sufficiently experienced,
and finally whether the contribution should count at all. An open process
quietly becomes a permission system controlled by the people already
closest to the microphone.

A community may discuss. It may evaluate evidence. It may reject a weak
argument. It may not turn familiarity into authority or curiosity about
drafting into control over participation.

The policy question remains the policy question. If the objection is wrong,
answer it. If it is repeated, answer it once. But stop using speculation
about tools and templates as a substitute for dealing with the substance.

Regards,
Nonhlanhla


On Mon, 20 Jul 2026, 5:26 pm <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: Request to Pause the AI Generated Posting (Thandeka Mseleku)
>    2. Re: RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 92:  Request to Pause the AI
>       Generated Posting (Omo Oaiya)
>    3. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names
>       for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Thandeka Mseleku)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 17:22:43 +0200
> From: Thandeka Mseleku <mselekuthandeka80 at gmail.com>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Cc: rpd-owner at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Request to Pause the AI Generated Posting
> Message-ID:
>         <CA+mVb0kq7Dbttq_6TRWLh1kHaPJ+gEfuYwtJd6i9XRT=
> jrQyMg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Noah,
>
> While I appreciate that this is your personal opinion, I do not believe
> assumptions about coordinated or AI-generated posts should be used as a
> basis for asking community members to pause their participation.
>
> The strength of the Policy Development Process lies in evaluating
> contributions on their technical and policy merits, regardless of whether
> participants reach similar conclusions. Agreement among contributors should
> not, by itself, be interpreted as evidence of coordination.
>
> I therefore believe the discussion should remain focused on the policy
> proposals themselves rather than on assumptions about the participants.
>
> BR,
> Thandeka Mseleku
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/495273c9/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:24:16 +0300
> From: Omo Oaiya <omo.oaiya at wacren.net>
> To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net, Taye Medoye <daniel.medoye at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 92:  Request to Pause
>         the AI Generated Posting
> Message-ID: <FC3CEBB7-A1D1-4F50-884D-99F379DCEF5E at wacren.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Fully agree, especially the distinction between swamping the list and
> treating AI-assisted arguments on their merits. On holiday and squandering
> quality time catching up with AFRINIC emails, and just said much the same
> to Ben on the AS-SET thread.
>
> Let's get on with the substance.
>
> Omo
>
> > On 20 Jul 2026, at 16:55, Mike Burns via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net> wrote:
> >
> > I am very happy that this list has some traffic, and separate from the
> AS-SET issue, the issue of AI generated posts is enormously interesting not
> only to this RIR policy list, but to all of them.
> >
> > My position is that there are two issues contained. One is the swamping
> of the list with AI generated posts. The other is the concept of treating
> AI posts like any other post.
> >
> > While I am against the use of AI to swamp the list with long messages in
> a Denial of Service sort of attack, I believe the principle of avoiding ad
> hominem arguments means that we have to treat the AI generated arguments
> the same as if they came directly from the pen of the poster. That is to
> say, ignore everything but the arguments being made, not the use of AI. It
> is the arguments that matter, not the speaker.
> >
> > I expect this to bubble up in other RIR policy lists as time goes on, it
> would be good to  have some kind of principled response.
> > Many use translators to write posts in foreign languages, so certainly
> some tool use is expected.
> >
> > There are ways to block participants who transgress in other ways and
> those who post repeated AI slop to swamp the list should be so treated.
> > But unless there is an attempt by an individual to swamp the list, the
> posts should be treated as if written by the poster, that is like every
> other post.
> >
> > I am interested to hear other perspectives on this.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mike
> >
> >
> > From: Taye Medoye <daniel.medoye at gmail.com>
> > Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 8:38 AM
> > To: rpd at afrinic.net
> > Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 92: Request to Pause the
> AI Generated Posting
> >
> > In regard to the ensuing antagonistic reponses relating to the call for
> the pause of AI generated mails, l align with the position expressed by
> Noah for obvious reasons:
> >
> > Firstly, the well referenced Policy Development Process (PDP) on open
> and unecumbered participation and expressions remains sancrosant, and a
> guiding principle. I think this priciple should be observed always;
> >
> > Secondly, l am not aware that the Forum gives the freedom to engage in
> any form of criticism on the contributions made by participants.
> >
> > Above all, l subscribe to the view that, while AI may be good in
> assisting with information as may be sought concerning any subject matter,
> l do not think it has the capacity to meet the prinicple of originality
> expected in any written literary work, whether in research or for
> informative diseemination purposes.
> >
> > The bottom line remains that, in line with the framework for
> particiapting in any discussion on this Forum, mutual respect for views
> should be upheld.
> >
> > Daniel Taye Medoye
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20260720/1ed5fc47/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 17:25:17 +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+mVb0nk0PyaW+uE7ZNtxmA-cyVh5_V4h5+M7QdWgSR90uLqVg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I agree with the view expressed by Asamkele and others that this proposal
> has not demonstrated why registry enforcement is the appropriate solution.
> The discussion continues to assume that introducing mandatory hierarchical
> naming is the only effective way to address operational concerns, yet it
> has not shown why less restrictive approaches would be insufficient.
>
> I also believe the discussion should remain focused on the technical and
> policy merits of the proposal rather than assumptions about how
> participants prepare or present their contributions. Whether a contribution
> is concise, detailed, or drafted with writing tools does not change the
> validity of the arguments it contains. Each submission should be evaluated
> on its substance.
>
> For these reasons, I remain opposed to AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02.
>
> BR,
> Thandeka Mseleku
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/a209f273/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 101
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/20b39f2a/attachment-0001.html>