[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 107

Mon Jul 20 17:32:52 UTC 2026

Hi, I guess I'm support of this

Ultimately, proponents of Artificial Intelligence conclude that the
technology is not a replacement for humanity, but rather the next logical
step in our technological evolution. History proves that every major
industrial shift creates initial fear, yet ultimately delivers higher
productivity, new job sectors, and an elevated global standard of living.
By acting as the ultimate intellectual co-pilot, AI liberates workers from
grueling administrative tasks, allowing society to refocus on empathy, deep
strategy, and genuine creative innovation.

 Furthermore, the immense global challenges of the twenty-first
century—from predicting climate disruptions to curing complex
diseases—require computational power far beyond human capability. Rather
than a threat to our autonomy, AI stands as the single most powerful tool
we possess to solve humanity's greatest crises and democratize world-class
expertise for everyone.

Best regards
Kwandokuhle Bhembe

On Mon, 20 Jul 2026, 18:59 , <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: Writing tools (Phetulo Dhlamini)
>    2. Re: RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 92: Request to Pause the AI
>       Generated Posting (Gugu Dhlamini)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:35:41 +0200
> From: Phetulo Dhlamini <phetulodhlamini at gmail.com>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Writing tools
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAABFmSn9mMmtkQAubfP44Fo+bMGm3eAavUQRDm0iO4eMuEDzwg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> On that point, we?re closer than it first appeared.
>
> Actual flooding, whether automated or not, should be handled under the
> existing list rules. My concern is with the phrase ?AI DDoS,? because it
> can stigmatise ordinary AI-assisted participation before any disruptive
> conduct has occurred.
>
> The fair test is behaviour, not the tool: excessive volume, duplication,
> impersonation, or deliberate disruption can be moderated. A real
> participant who submits a message and stands behind it should still have
> the argument considered on its merits.
>
> That keeps the process open without turning moderation into gatekeeping
> over which tools people may use.
>
> Regards,
> Phetulo
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/e51cbe8e/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 18:58:46 +0200
> From: Gugu Dhlamini <gugudhlamini343 at gmail.com>
> To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>, rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 92: Request to Pause the
>         AI Generated Posting
> Message-ID:
>         <CADMrvbOoZxxUiqYcLpZZo30qTvOo3WBTKiaoAJrCaGNgRBr=
> QA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thank you for clarifying. I?ll leave the matter there, with the expectation
> that the same standard is applied consistently to all participants.
>
> Regards,
> Gugu
>
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2026, 6:43 pm Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gugu,
> >
> >
> >
> > Off-list. Yes, of course.
> >
> > I was clear to distinguish between list-flooding as a sort of Denial of
> > Service from simply using AI.
> >
> > Who cares who wrote the message? The list is open to everybody.
> >
> > That in itself is to ensure that the message is what matters, not some
> > gatekeeping of participants.
> >
> > I didn?t want to clutter the list with more discussion of this matter,
> but
> > there is a new thread now with the Subject line Writing tools.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Gugu Dhlamini <gugudhlamini343 at gmail.com>
> > *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2026 12:30 PM
> > *To:* Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>; rpd at afrinic.net
> > *Subject:* Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 92: Request to Pause the
> > AI Generated Posting
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > Then we agree on the important principle: moderate actual disruptive
> > conduct, not the tool, and assess every contribution on its substance.
> >
> > The participant remains responsible for the message. That keeps the
> > process open without turning moderation into gatekeeping.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gugu
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2026, 6:15 pm Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Gugu,
> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder if you actually read my post, as I completely agree with your
> > rewording of it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Gugu Dhlamini <gugudhlamini343 at gmail.com>
> > *Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2026 12:02 PM
> > *To:* rpd at afrinic.net
> > *Subject:* Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 92: Request to Pause the
> > AI Generated Posting
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Mike,
> >
> > I support the use of AI-assisted drafting. I pay for the tool, I choose
> > when to use it, and I remain responsible for every message I submit. The
> > software is not participating in the PDWG. I am.
> >
> > The list may address actual misconduct such as spam, impersonation,
> > automated flooding, or excessive duplication. It should not police lawful
> > writing tools simply because some participants dislike them.
> >
> > Participation should be judged by substance and conduct, not by whether
> > someone used modern technology to express a view. Otherwise, familiar
> > participants turn personal preference into an unwritten permission
> system.
> >
> > My tools are my choice. My words remain my responsibility.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gugu
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2026, 5:49 pm Taye Medoye <daniel.medoye at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Mike,
> >
> >
> >
> > I do hope that the usefulness of AI in assisting to generate relevant
> > information is not being undermined here, as contributions on writing
> tools
> > tend to suggest. In this regard, l want to align with the position of
> Mike,
> > to the extent of his disapproval of the use of AI to swamp the list with
> > long messages in a denial of service sort of attack.......
> >
> >
> >
> > However, the discussion is drifting from the proposal into judgments
> about
> > who is speaking and how they prepared their words.
> >
> >
> > That is a wrong test.
> >
> > A participant may use translation, editing, or drafting assistance and
> > still remain fully responsible for the position expressed. The policy
> > question is whether mandatory hierarchical naming is necessary,
> > proportionate, and limited to a genuine technical invariant.
> >
> > Operational benefits are relevant, but they do not automatically create
> > policy authority. Nor does support from established participants become
> > ?community consensus? merely because those voices are familiar.
> >
> > The co-chairs should separate distinct arguments, test the evidence, and
> > avoid turning participation into mandate. The community may advise,
> > support, warn, and object. It does not acquire ownership over dissent.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think the use of AI generated information should be viewed in the
> > context of how it is projected to address the issue of concern, and its
> > veriability.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Taye Medoye
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2026 at 15:55, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> 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/20260720/66c2e8c1/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 107
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260720/e70a97d5/attachment-0001.html>