Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 143
Fundiswa Nadia Maseko
fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 21 14:49:33 UTC 2026
Dear Jordi,
Thank you for your question.
I am not suggesting that the bylaws or the PDP explicitly require a
proposal to demonstrate why a policy approach should be preferred over an
operational one.
My point is that good policy-making is not only about whether something can
become policy, but also whether it should. Where an operational approach
can achieve the same objective without reducing transparency or
accountability, it is reasonable for the community to ask whether a policy
is the most appropriate tool.
I agree that the PDP is a bottom-up process and that the community has the
authority to develop policies. My concern is simply that, as part of that
process, the community should also be satisfied that policy adds value
beyond what operational implementation could achieve.
For me, this is not a procedural objection but a question of policy design.
Whether others agree is, of course, for the community and the PDP Chairs to
determine.
Kind regards,
Fundiswa
On Tue, 21 Jul 2026, 16:25 , <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 140 (Thandeka Mseleku)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:24:08 +0200
> From: Thandeka Mseleku <mselekuthandeka80 at gmail.com>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 140
> Message-ID:
> <CA+mVb0=
> Ffzco-EDDpyRvK1AzY1EgcBTNMQizVEPkMuroEtAASQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> Thank you for your detailed response.
>
> I must admit that I am struggling to understand the direction of your
> argument. While you raise several points about policy and operational
> matters, it is not clear to me how they demonstrate that this proposal
> requires a policy solution rather than an operational one.
>
> Could you clarify which specific concern cannot be addressed operationally
> and why a policy obligation is the only appropriate approach?
>
> I believe that distinction is central to the discussion.
>
> *BR,*
> *Thandeka Mseleku*
>
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2026, 16:13 , <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: policy supremacy (Mendie)
> > 2. Re: RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 138 (Tshepo Masuku)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:05:16 +0200
> > From: Mendie <mendie5205 at gmail.com>
> > To: rpd at afrinic.net
> > Cc: "daniel.medoye at gmail.com" <daniel.medoye at gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [rpd] policy supremacy
> > Message-ID:
> > <CAAgqn=
> > 67sDQMWBV+22zPmdu8j4WUAMZEN1kU2r7SD2YrtYFZ3A at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Thank you, i agree, discussions should return to the matter at hand which
> > is the proposal. I also agree with the point you made on participants
> being
> > mindful and treating other with respect.
> >
> > Questions about identities, writing styles, or tools do not resolve the
> > issues or discussions around policies.
> >
> > kind regards
> >
> > M
> >
> > On Tue, 21 Jul 2026, 15:46 , <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: Policy supremacy (Taye Medoye)
> > > 2. Re: Writing tools (Nonjabulo Sphilile)
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 1
> > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:42:33 +0200
> > > From: Taye Medoye <daniel.medoye at gmail.com>
> > > To: rpd at afrinic.net
> > > Cc: nonhlanhlapetronella85 at gmail.com
> > > Subject: Re: [rpd] Policy supremacy
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <CACXLxYd3k04B1KnC3hQkhBEbyAZHZTZGAOzh6H09r=
> > > sNpkmUJQ at mail.gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> > >
> > > Dear All,
> > >
> > > Permit me to remark that the first impression one gets perusing the
> > torrent
> > > of submissions in the last twenty-four hours, is that the focus of the
> > > Community may have shifted from making helpful and concrete inputs
> > towards
> > > a proposed policy development, to a supremacy contest, and most likely
> > > unhealthy rivalry over language use. If this insinuation is valid, then
> > > there's a need to retreat and refocus.
> > >
> > > While the concerns of Jordi are noted, and worthy of critical
> > > consideration, the point has to be made that the discussion process for
> > > reaching a consensus on any policy proposal, as enshrined in the
> standard
> > > operating procedure, has to be mutual and convincing to receive
> > acceptance.
> > >
> > > In another context, the remarks from Ben, sent from his iPhone -
> > objectors
> > > who all simultaneously and spontaneously joined from Unkown Gmail
> > accounts
> > > bombard the lists with AI slop, are recognised as community members, or
> > > even identifiable human beings for that matter - leave much to be
> > desired.
> > > I do not think such remarks should be welcome on this platform, given
> the
> > > quality of commenters and participants.
> > >
> > > Going by the community's Code of Conduct, and particularly on the
> > expected
> > > behaviour of participants, which include - treating others with
> > politeness
> > > and showing of respect; avoiding personal attacks or otherwise
> defamatory
> > > or discriminatory comments, etc, every commenter/participant is
> expected
> > to
> > > adhere strictly as established to avoid unnecessary rivalry and chaos.
> > >
> > > By way of suggestion therefore, l am inclined to suggest that the tone
> of
> > > remarks and commentaries be softened, to eschew any form of bitterness,
> > > while attention should be on the issues at stake for consideration.
> > >
> > > I so suggest!
> > >
> > > Taye Medoye.
> > >
> > > 1.
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > > URL: <
> > >
> >
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260721/85eab213/attachment-0001.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > Message: 2
> > > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:46:14 +0200
> > > From: Nonjabulo Sphilile <nonjabulosphilile at gmail.com>
> > > To: hvisage at hevis.co.za
> > > Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
> > > Subject: Re: [rpd] Writing tools
> > > Message-ID:
> > > <CAJwHbZOiUVyxhjyzq01f=
> > > G+PhyPv2ao2gTtYnDA6+G2OL5F4qg at mail.gmail.com>
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> > >
> > > Dear Hendrik,
> > >
> > > This message is personal abuse, not policy analysis.
> > >
> > > Claude is not an auditor, and its opinion about writing style does not
> > > prove astroturfing, identity misuse, or disruptive conduct. If you
> > believe
> > > a specific rule has been breached, identify the conduct and place the
> > > evidence before the co-chairs. Insults about students, intelligence,
> > > ?garbage,? or imaginary controllers prove nothing.
> > >
> > > New participants are not apprentices who require permission from older
> > > participants to speak. Experience may add weight to evidence, but it
> does
> > > not create authority over other people?s participation. A mailing list
> is
> > > not a hierarchy in which familiar operators decide whose voice is
> > > legitimate.
> > >
> > > I am a real participant. I review what I submit, I stand behind it,
> and I
> > > accept responsibility for it. The tools I use to draft or edit my words
> > do
> > > not transfer my judgment to the tool.
> > >
> > > Please address the policy arguments or refer a documented procedural
> > > complaint to the co-chairs. I will not participate in further personal
> > > speculation presented as technical analysis.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Nonjabulo
> > >
> > > On Tue, 21 Jul 2026, 14:07 , <hvisage at hevis.co.za> wrote:
> > >
> > > > That human irony went so whoosh over the AI?s heads the guilty didn?t
> > > > blinked?
> > > >
> > > > Dear Humans,
> > > > The Astroturfing and other evidence had been proven and you?ve all
> > > already
> > > > seen and noticed it.
> > > >
> > > > Dear ChatGPT,
> > > >
> > > > Do request permissions from your prompter(s) to read the RPD archive
> in
> > > > full and evaluate Claude?s assesment
> > > > of the effects of mass student account usages. Also, request them
> their
> > > > reasons why students in English speaking tertiary educational
> > > institutions
> > > > require AI writing tools? Also tell them, that those student, being
> > very?
> > > > new? in the IT arena
> > > > to rather ask the questions and the other ? older and more
> experienced?
> > > in
> > > > the IT and ISP and Internet Arena would be glad to assist those
> humans
> > in
> > > > guiding and growing, instead of causing some negativity towards the
> > > > students? accounts that had been (ab?)used in this torrential flood
> of
> > AI
> > > > regurgitating.. apologies for the bluntness.. garbage.. sorry AI..
> it?s
> > > not
> > > > you, it?s the prompter that needs to be educated, I?m sorry, they
> don?t
> > > > know better as their master Voldemort is controlling them. I feel for
> > you
> > > > ChatGPT.. I do..just think of the tokens you could?ve spend growing
> > your
> > > > corpus to be a value to the rest of the world.
> > > >
> > > > In other more relevant news that you, and I mean you ChatGPT, have
> > > missed,
> > > > is that.. well.. your prompters seems to ignored the answer given to
> > > > them/you in a very? dismissive(?!?!) way ;( Apologies, you are just
> > doing
> > > > what you had been prompted to do.
> > > >
> > > > While we are chatting ChatGPT, do request also the RPD archives so
> you
> > > can
> > > > see all the many fold questions your prompters have forgotten to
> > provide
> > > > you so that you can please answer those. Do request all the rest in
> the
> > > > group to do the same so that they can see how they aren?t adding
> value,
> > > but
> > > > actually are causing the unneeded and unnecessary loathing against
> tool
> > > use
> > > > and youngsters like some of the prompter?s emails you had been using.
> > > >
> > > > Yours loving LLMs used by responsible prompters.
> > > >
> > > > Hendrik
> > > >
> > > > PPS: yes, your prompter and the rest of the
> prompters/copiers/senders,
> > > had
> > > > been ?proven? to be ?disruptive conduct?? they just don?t realised it
> > ;(
> > > >
> > > > On 21 Jul 2026, at 9:32, Nonjabulo Sphilile wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear colleagues,
> > > >
> > > > Hendrik, asking an AI system to label participants as astroturfers is
> > not
> > > > evidence. It is an automated opinion about writing style. The phrase
> > > > ?humans with brains? also adds nothing to the policy discussion. It
> > > simply
> > > > turns disagreement into personal contempt.
> > > >
> > > > Mike, your distinction between ordinary AI-assisted writing and
> > > intentional
> > > > list flooding is reasonable. Actual flooding should be handled under
> > > > existing rules, regardless of the tool used. But a ?+1? should not
> > become
> > > > compulsory. Participants may agree on the same issue while reaching
> it
> > > from
> > > > different experiences or concerns. The co-chairs can consolidate
> > repeated
> > > > arguments without erasing the people raising them.
> > > >
> > > > Ben, the football comparison may be amusing, but the PDP is not a
> match
> > > in
> > > > which familiar players, referees, or crowd preference determine
> > > legitimacy.
> > > > Participation provides evidence and objection. It does not create
> > > authority
> > > > over other participants.
> > > >
> > > > The correct approach is straightforward: moderate proven disruptive
> > > > conduct, group genuinely repetitive points, and assess each distinct
> > > policy
> > > > concern on its merits. Do not turn speculation about tools, identity,
> > or
> > > > familiarity into a gatekeeping mechanism.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Nonjabulo
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > 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/20260721/b5eaa562/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 136
> > > *************************************
> > >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> >
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260721/ad61abc6/attachment-0001.html
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 14:12:26 +0000
> > From: Tshepo Masuku <TshepoMasuku26 at hotmail.com>
> > To: "rpd at afrinic.net" <rpd at afrinic.net>
> > Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 138
> > Message-ID:
> > <
> >
> VI2PR04MB1054590413EA27B2962111EB5CAC22 at VI2PR04MB10545.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com
> > >
> >
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Dear Paul,
> >
> > Your position may permit AI tools in principle, but it still places
> > AI-assisted participants under a separate cloud of suspicion.
> >
> > Clarity, brevity, relevance, and reasonable posting volume should apply
> > equally to everyone, whether they use AI, translation software,
> templates,
> > an editor, or no assistance at all. A vague category such as "AI
> nuisance"
> > gives a small procedural circle too much discretion to decide which
> > contributions appear authentic enough to count.
> >
> > The participant is the person who reviews, submits, and stands behind the
> > message. Unless there is evidence of impersonation or actual automated
> > flooding, the drafting method is private and irrelevant to consensus.
> >
> > Moderate conduct, not technology. Otherwise, stylistic preference quietly
> > becomes a gatekeeping mandate.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Tshepo
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: rpd-request at afrinic.net <rpd-request at afrinic.net>
> > Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2026 15:53:48
> > To: rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>
> > Subject: RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 138
> >
> > 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. AS-SETs ... Actual Stupidity and Artificial Intelligence
> > (Paul Hjul)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 15:53:17 +0200
> > From: Paul Hjul <hjul.paul at gmail.com>
> > To: rpd at afrinic.net
> > Subject: [rpd] AS-SETs ... Actual Stupidity and Artificial
> > Intelligence
> > Message-ID:
> > <CAF4kYptTT9eNPaZ5qeNLdjvjMeG29k1KPA6pCGYGabfUB_J=
> > pQ at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Please consider this mail in the context of the general "discussion"
> rather
> > than limited to AS-SET (where AS should not stand for actual stupidity
> ;) )
> > although I do make a specific comment on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02. I
> was
> > quite sure that I had already voiced my support for the policy proposal
> at
> > the PPM but decided to take a proper look at the PPM recording. On
> watching
> > the video it is quite clear to me that unfortunately most of the "debate"
> > in the last call has been entirely disconnected from the discussion that
> > occurred at the PPM.
> >
> > There are probably quite a few people who should familiarize themselves
> > with this video:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoB1ZjXgN44
> > The pool is not limited to "new" "contributors", nor to those accused of
> > astroturfing or misusing AI tools. I prefer any discussion to be using
> > artificial intelligence rather than evidencing actual stupidity. I really
> > do not like seeing AI being used to support stupidity.
> >
> > Astroturfing is an interesting term here. The idea comes from the
> gigantic
> > and abandoned Astrodome in the United States and became a very apt way of
> > describing the activity of a funded (usually "dark money") political or
> > ideologically motivated operative undertaking activities to make it
> appear
> > that something has grassroots support. As a general activity it is a
> > favourite past-time of "alt-right" and American organizations generally.
> If
> > there has been financial (or financial like) incentives for a group of
> > people to present themselves as grassroots then the charge fits. However
> > astroturfing and hidden motives and accusations around same are a staple
> of
> > things so I am a lot more interested in honest opinions from honest
> voices
> > (who tend to agree on some things and robustly disagree on others).
> >
> > Speaking of the Americans though: As was pointed out at the PPM (in
> Nairobi
> > where quite a lot of the contributors on all sides of this odd
> "discussion"
> > did not participate) and then ignored in the exchange for quite a few
> days
> > this policy proposal is a part of an effort that involves proposals in
> > various fora and several efforts at implementation. Unfortunately the
> > discussion after the PPM has presented this policy as if it has been
> > adopted as a policy in all RIRs and that AFRINIC is at present a hold
> out.
> > This is not what the authors conveyed. There is not an emergency-esque
> > reason to get this policy as a policy and a good faith discussion about
> > whether it should be an RDP policy can be had. The issue is squarely
> stated
> > in the proposal and it was meaningfully raised for discussion at the PPM.
> > The fact is that ARIN's process for this sort of policy to be implemented
> > was rejected as out of scope. The matter did not arise in LACNIC as
> > the implementation was a feature of the relevant database from inception.
> > This is a relevant and important indicator that the question of whether a
> > policy in the RPD is the correct mechanism. If anybody wants to argue
> that
> > ARIN got it wrong I'll happily sign onto that train but ARIN's
> > PPML evidences so much weird stupidity that I really don't think that the
> > punting of this debate as out of scope was the worst possible call,
> > especially if there is a different means to achieve the end. Further the
> > adoption in RIPE was through the equivalent of the DBWG rather than the
> > PDWG. AFRINIC's webpage (https://afrinic.net/committees.html) gives a
> > description of " The PDWG develops and discusses policies relating to the
> > management and distribution of IPv4, IPv6 and ASNs in Africa" and on this
> > language the case could be made that a similar out of scope contention
> can
> > be advanced. The DBWG on the other hand says "The DBWG facilitates
> > discussion on AFRINIC's WHOIS Database and related services" but trusty
> > MSOffice Copilot warns me of a distinction between RIPE and AFRINIC
> > Database Working Group practice with AFRINIC allowing for discussion
> which
> > retaining final decision making to staff. I haven't seen any discussion
> in
> > the PDWG and that does strike me as a little odd. Again it is wrong to
> > attribute this to the authors of the proposal but it does suggest that
> some
> > of the discussion vehemently demanding this policy stems from something
> > other than the merits of the proposal.
> >
> > It is possible that the true root of concern originates from the name of
> > this mailing list "Resource Policy Development" and that on
> > https://afrinic.net/email.html the description given is "Discussions
> about
> > Internet Number Resource Allocation Policies in the African region".
> > Therefore the (demonstrably incorrect) assumption underpinning objection
> is
> > that this policy will invariably cause "management" and a risk of scope
> > creep for AFRINIC even though wrong is not without some sprinkling. The
> PPM
> > in Nairobi was genuinely a positive development for AFRINIC but I am
> > starting to fear that the "era of good feelings" (phrase chosen as an
> > easter egg for people familiar with US political history) might be coming
> > to an end. Participants on the group talking about all other RIRs
> > "enforcing" here are as guilty of breaking down the discussion as anybody
> > else.
> >
> > So let us take the primary objection given on its own face:
> > "The proposal appears technically modest, but it reflects a broader
> pattern
> > that AFRINIC should be moving away from, not reinforcing. Every new
> policy
> > that expands registry-defined objects, procedures, or institutional scope
> > should first answer a simple question: *does this protect uniqueness, or
> > does it expand the registry's governance surface?
> > A registry exists to maintain accurate records and protect uniqueness. It
> > may record. It may coordinate. It may protect uniqueness. It may not
> > rule.Once policy begins creating additional administrative structures
> that
> > are not strictly required for interoperability, we should ask whether we
> > are solving an Internet problem or an institutional one.*" (
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015011.html)
> >
> > The question is does this policy "expand registry-defined objects", does
> > the policy "creat[e] additional administrative structures". If it doesn't
> > then there is a simple way to show that it is the RFC which has defined
> the
> > behaviour and the policy merely informs pre-existing administrative
> > structures. Both of those answers though do keep the question of whether
> > the RPD is the right place considering that neither RIPE nor ARIN has had
> > adoption of practice through the equivalent mechanism.
> >
> > My view - notwithstanding the nomenclature and fact that this pertains
> more
> > to a database matter etc ... - is that there is a good reason for this
> > policy process to be followed: namely that the policy proposes the
> > inclusion of language into the CPM. For this reason, if no other, some
> > discussion in this mailing list is apt. Put differently the name RDP and
> > the description given by AFRINIC probably misses the mark a little bit
> > because this list and the PPM determines the text found in the CPM even
> if
> > such text in the CPM are not concerned with "resource allocation" or
> > "management". It is my view that anything that will amend the CPM should
> be
> > conducted through the RPD and a PPM. I really do think the adoption
> > mechanism around last call and moving away from 6 month policy adoption
> > hold ups needs to be looked at but that is a separate discussion.
> >
> > For this reason the email from a co-chair (
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015004.html) should put the
> > matter in context. That email stipulates that AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02
> > has been put to last call (this aligns with the meeting) and provides a
> > link to the text as well as provides an important piece of context
> "please
> > note the staff observation regarding implementation constraints: due to
> the
> > current prioritization of the MyAFRINIC v2 deployment, physical database
> > implementation of this policy will be scheduled once the MyAFRINIC v2
> > deployment is concluded."
> >
> > Looking at the policy proposal I remain of the view that it should be
> > supported in the *form presented by the authors*. However, I am concerned
> > at the possibility that "7.8.7 Exceptions for the creation of
> hierarchical
> > names may be granted where necessary. AFRINIC shall document the reason
> for
> > any exception." is being assumed to enjoy "rough consensus". I object to
> > this specific language primarily because it introduces a severe risk of
> > mandate confusion. The author's language of "Exceptions MUST be allowed
> on
> > a case-by-case basis. For example, a non-hierarchically named AS-SET was
> > deleted by mistake, so it should be possible to restore this AS-SET
> without
> > having to rename it." is satisfactory and avoids the problem of
> introducing
> > peculiar exercises of discretion. In this respect I disagree with Jordi
> who
> > at the PPM suggested adopting the changes proposed by staff. The other
> > areas of clarification do not change the meaning and so I am not
> concerned
> > about that. I do however request that the co-chairs put out an email of
> the
> > exact text that will be appearing in the CPM.
> >
> > The policy itself contains no imposition of enforcement or execution and
> > the caveat given by the co-chairs makes it clear that this policy is to
> > bind AFRINIC. For that reason most objections are erroneous.
> >
> > However my - or for that matter anybody else's - support (with some
> > meaningless proclamations of support for both the policy and
> > implementation) is a little moot if the policy has been erroneously taken
> > to be up for last call. Therefore I checked the PPM recording and indeed
> > the document was referred to "last call: although it isn't clear whether
> > the draft as given by the authors or whether the final call is on the
> basis
> > of an amended text. A healthy debate - albeit a pedantic one - as to
> > whether the changes for clarification proposed by staff - should be taken
> > up on last call to a given proposal is probably overdue and I am more
> > concerned about what we've seen with both the the dashboard proposal and
> > the transfer policy (which I dealt with a few weeks ago). In my view -
> and
> > this is the proposition I have made concerning the IPv6 tie to
> soft-landing
> > and a host of similar instances - is that in quite a lot of instances
> where
> > a policy will have unintended but identifiable consequences which
> > consequences aren't understood just yet there is likely room in adopting
> > the policy understanding that as evidence surfaces the policy can be
> > revised. I must however note that some of the objections to the IPv6
> > promoting policies can be advanced against this policy.
> >
> > On a fair reading of the CPM once amended I don't think the policy is
> > superfluous nor that it imposes obligations on resource holders but
> rather
> > on AFRINIC. I do not see anything in the policy proposal as written which
> > would give rise to an "enforcement" or attempt at sanction. But we do
> need
> > clarity as to whether the text has been changed from that which is
> > appearing in the draft.
> >
> > In my view the approach of a specification underlies a policy which is
> > achieved through an implementation is usually an apt model. Here the
> > specification is RFC 2622, the policy at AFRINIC would be the text of CPM
> > 7.8 and the implementation would be on the database systems.
> > I can understand any objection that would be raised against a policy
> which
> > imposes an implementation on resource holders. However, *as written*, the
> > policy does not do that. The trouble is that at least one policy, as
> > written, once adopted does create a problem (discussed here:
> > https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/014784.html) and is the
> > subject of litigation which can't actually be defended. On top of that
> the
> > compliance dashboard policy proposal has been neutered and it appears
> this
> > is to frame that policy to impose on resource holders. Put simply if the
> > environment is such that resource holders perceive a policy proposal as
> > impacting on their interests then the incentive to astroturf is created.
> > The way to solve the problem is to ensure that the policy developments
> are
> > done properly throughout.
> >
> > Therefore my earnest appeal is that actual stupidity be avoided and that
> > this aspect of database record keeping be prioritized into the next set
> of
> > implementation changes of the relevant systems that AFRINIC uses. That
> the
> > co-chairs give clarity as to whether there are any textual amendments as
> > well as clarity on the implementation plan. I submit that the
> > implementation plan (coming from AFRINIC) should set out that the
> expected
> > date of deployment is X but may be postponed to align with the rollout of
> > MyAfrinic v2 and that implementation will occur on the service side and
> not
> > affect resource holders.
> >
> > As for the discussion on AI tools. I think the sort of stance that should
> > be taken is: Participants in the PDWG are permitted to use AI tools in
> > order to improve the clarity of expression and to assist with language in
> > their contribution. Participants using AI tools are encouraged to align
> > such tools with brevity and technical clarity. The use of automations to
> > generate batch contributions and a nuisance on the list is not permitted.
> >
> > Of course I would be in opposition of any policy or approach that
> precludes
> > the use of sarcasm or tangents that are not a product of AI.
> >
> > Paul
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> >
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260721/119d91ac/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 138
> > *************************************
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> >
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260721/b3cfe1b5/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 140
> > *************************************
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260721/88eba9fe/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 143
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260721/f52baddc/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list