[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 142

Tue Jul 21 15:38:18 UTC 2026

Dear Taye,

Thank you for your thoughtful message.
I agree that our focus should remain on the policy itself. Strong community
discussions are built by addressing ideas on their merits, not by
questioning the people presenting them.

Kind regards,
Fundiswa Nadia Maseko

On Tue, 21 Jul 2026, 16:24 , <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 (Nia Petronella)
>    2. Re: Policy supremacy (Ben Roberts - AfriNIC)
>    3. The question is whether the content is Just Nuisance (Paul Hjul)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:21:55 +0200
> From: Nia Petronella <nonhlanhlapetronella85 at gmail.com>
> To: Taye Medoye <daniel.medoye at gmail.com>
> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Policy supremacy
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CA+mDOg1RvBBc32D6-ToNmrzc1DQ0pybb82sSUH6xPVLSsSudeg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I agree with Taye. The discussion has drifted from the policy into
> judgments about who is entitled to participate and how they prepare their
> messages.
>
> A community process should test evidence and arguments, not familiarity,
> seniority, email addresses, or writing style. Participation brings
> expertise, warning, and objection, but it does not give anyone a mandate to
> belittle or exclude others.
>
> Remarks questioning whether objectors are even human cross a line. Whatever
> one?s position on the proposal or AI tools, personal ridicule is not a
> technical rebuttal.
>
> The sensible course is to apply the Code of Conduct consistently, lower the
> temperature, and return to the actual policy issues.
>
> Regards,
> Nonhlanhla
>
>
>
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2026, 3:42 pm Taye Medoye <daniel.medoye at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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/20260721/26c57efe/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:22:06 +0200
> From: Ben Roberts - AfriNIC <ben.roberts at afrinic.net>
> To: Gugu Dhlamini <gugudhlamini343 at gmail.com>
> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Policy supremacy
> Message-ID: <EBD72D25-EC44-47D7-B93C-3E0009714665 at afrinic.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260721/c9cc9eb2/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2026 16:23:14 +0200
> From: Paul Hjul <hjul.paul at gmail.com>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: [rpd] The question is whether the content is Just Nuisance
> Message-ID:
>         <CAF4kYpuPJ5va5y8LVcSetnH8+9YFbZLQmWmGP8vfBVnM=
> 8h5Lg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Not at all. My exact terming was:
>
> Participants using AI tools are encouraged to align
> > such tools with brevity and technical clarity
>
>
>  Nothing in this points to a "cloud of suspicion". On the contrary I am
> probably advancing that one really useful dynamic that AI introduces is the
> ability to more usefully summarise than humans do. AI tools allow the user
> to tune the responses, and brevity and technical clarity are better suited
> to this discussion.  As somebody who writes "walls of text" I am very
> familiar with the adage (and use it often) "this letter would have been
> shorter but I didn't have the time".
>
> What I do place suspicion on is automation aligned contributions where this
> is a nuisance. Unless you are a loveable Great Dane avoiding being a
> nuisance is usually expected. (that is for a chuckle -
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Nuisance)
>
> From: *Tshepo Masuku* TshepoMasuku26 at hotmail.com
> > <rpd%
> 40afrinic.net?Subject=Re%3A%20%5Brpd%5D%20RPD%20Digest%2C%20Vol%20222%2C%20Issue%20138&In-Reply-To=%3CVI2PR04MB1054590413EA27B2962111EB5CAC22%40VI2PR04MB10545.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com%3E
> >
>
>
> > 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
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260721/5f7a59f4/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 142
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260721/2b211b9d/attachment.html>