[rpd] Policy supremacy

[Andrew Alston]

Actually - just to set you straight - there has been one objection - made
but multiple parties (human or otherwise) and multiple participants have
addressed the objection directly - irrespective of if the multiple entities
like the way it has been addressed or not.

Andrew

On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 17:53, Zenalo Mguqulwa <mguqulwazenalo at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Ben,
>
> You're correct. Let me rephrase my earlier comment.
>
> I'm not opposed to identity verification itself. If the community believes
> it would improve transparency and accountability in the PDP, then I'm open
> to that discussion.
>
> My point was that I don't think it should be introduced simply as a
> reaction to a particular proposal attracting new participants or a large
> number of objections. It should be considered on its own merits through the
> normal community process.
>
> In the meantime, AFRINIC's current framework states that anyone with an
> interest in AFRINIC is welcome to participate, so I believe contributions
> should continue to be assessed on their merits.
>
> Regards,
>
> Zenalo
>
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 at 16:49, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree. They are using, well, I wouldn’t call it eloquent, but prompt
>> driven words against a policy proposal.
>>
>> I don’t see anything wrong in that, certainly nothing that would shake
>> the foundations of an open stakeholder policy forum.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ben Roberts - AfriNIC <ben.roberts at afrinic.net>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2026 10:42 AM
>> *To:* Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
>> *Cc:* Zenalo Mguqulwa <mguqulwazenalo at gmail.com>; rpd at afrinic.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Policy supremacy
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike,
>>
>> The strength of wordy arguments coming at us arguing against (human)
>> identity verification, from unknown mailboxes, seems to serve as proof that
>> the mailboxes are in fact AI agent automatons (like Openclaw instances)
>>  and not human at all. Hence a very good argument for the thing they are
>> writing eloquent prompt driven words against.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Ben.
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22 Jul 2026, at 16:36, Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> “Strong arguments” so we must take action?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Ben Roberts - AfriNIC via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2026 10:29 AM
>> *To:* Zenalo Mguqulwa <mguqulwazenalo at gmail.com>
>> *Cc:* rpd at afrinic.net
>> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] Policy supremacy
>>
>>
>>
>> Zenalo and others,
>>
>>
>>
>> Your bombardment of us with strong arguments against identity
>> verification, coming from completely new mailboxes on the list, are doing a
>> good job of convincing me that we MUST actually introduced mandatory
>> identity verification.
>>
>>
>>
>> Good job!
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 22 Jul 2026, at 16:24, Zenalo Mguqulwa <mguqulwazenalo at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't believe introducing identity verification is the right solution.
>> The platform should remain open and accessible to anyone who wishes to
>> participate.
>>
>> What matters is the quality of the argument, not who makes it. If
>> participants choose to share their background or affiliations, that's
>> entirely their decision, but it should never become a requirement for
>> taking part.
>>
>> The same applies to AI. Its use is only going to become more common, and
>> that in itself isn't a problem. The focus should remain on whether
>> contributions are constructive, evidence-based, and engage with the
>> discussion.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Zen
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2026 at 16:12, <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 (Jaco Kroon)
>>    2. Re: RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 158 (Fundiswa Nadia Maseko)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:01:03 +0200
>> From: Jaco Kroon <jaco at uls.co.za>
>> To: rpd at afrinic.net
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] Policy supremacy
>> Message-ID: <14936a5e-6d1e-4e4b-8957-b0e2018274aa at uls.co.za>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Are we thus proposing that each and every person must positively
>> identify themselves prior to being subscribed to the RPD list, as well
>> as for all existing subscribers to be positively identified by date X or
>> be unsubscribed?? To what extend should this identification go - should
>> it include affiliation checking, eg, Jaco Kroon actually JK19-AFRINIC in
>> the whois db - from where you can track the networks I'm involved with?
>>
>> I'd be in support of such a policy change/direction.
>>
>> Regarding use of AI, I don't have a particular objection to the use of
>> LLMs (but having worked on the Comp-Sci side of things ... I would not
>> trust them without validating whatever they spit out - and recent
>> experience - not restricted to this ML - shows they spit out more
>> garbage than most community-driven support forums), as long as they're
>> used sensibly to help with formatting and/or interpretation of emails,
>> not to spew out noise for the sake of noise - as what it feels has been
>> done the last week or two.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Jaco
>>
>> n 2026/07/22 15:52, Diroi Karalis wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Musa,
>> >
>> > Tshepo and Gugu don't need prior recognition from established
>> > participants before their input counts. Joining recently, missing
>> > earlier meetings, or sharing similar views is not evidence of
>> > impersonation or bad faith. Anyone is entitled to join an open process
>> > at Last Call and raise objections before a proposal becomes policy.
>> > KYC would be a significant procedural and privacy change. It can't be
>> > applied selectively to objectors we don't recognize it would need a
>> > formal basis, a clear justification, proper safeguards, and equal
>> > application to every participant, not just the inconvenient ones.
>> > If you have evidence of misconduct, send it to the co-chairs.
>> > Otherwise, engage with Tshepo and Gugu's arguments on their merits.
>> > Familiarity isn't authority, and "the community" isn't a closed circle
>> > that gets to decide who's allowed in.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Diroi
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > RPD mailing list
>> > RPD at afrinic.net
>> > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:11:08 +0200
>> From: Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com>
>> To: rpd at afrinic.net
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 158
>> Message-ID:
>>         <CABV0QcRrHfKFhTOrPUrO=
>> rbjfBJEesLOjvV_f1OTFkeiLpGj0Q at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I understand the concerns being raised about AI and new participants
>> joining the discussion. However, I don't think we should discourage people
>> from participating simply because they are new or because they choose to
>> use AI as a writing aid.
>>
>> AI can help people organize their thoughts, improve grammar, or
>> communicate
>> more clearly, but it shouldn't replace independent thinking. What matters
>> most is whether the ideas being presented are relevant, technically sound,
>> and contribute meaningfully to the policy discussion.
>>
>> The PDP has always been intended to be open and inclusive. New
>> participants
>> should be encouraged to engage, provided they do so respectfully and in
>> good faith. If there are concerns about duplicate messages or coordinated
>> submissions, those can be addressed based on evidence rather than
>> assumptions about individuals.
>>
>> I believe we should continue evaluating contributions on their merit and
>> keep the discussion focused on the policy itself.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Fundiswa Nadia Maseko
>>
>> On Wed, 22 Jul 2026, 15:53 , <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 (Nonjabulo Sphilile)
>> >    2. Re: The usage of AI in platforms (JP)
>> >    3. Re: Policy supremacy (Diroi Karalis)
>> >
>> >
>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Message: 1
>> > Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:45:19 +0200
>> > From: Nonjabulo Sphilile <nonjabulosphilile at gmail.com>
>> > To: rpd at afrinic.net
>> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Policy supremacy
>> > Message-ID:
>> >         <CAJwHbZOpK+zh=
>> > aWw6YqZVRZ51DVEdpsQ3xfRar0XmgPedHLruA at mail.gmail.com>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> >
>> > Hi Musa,
>> >
>> > The PDWG is open. Participation does not depend on being known to
>> > long-standing members, attending earlier meetings, or proving a
>> > professional stake after joining. New participation is still
>> participation.
>> >
>> > KYC would be a serious procedural change, not an informal test for
>> > unfamiliar objectors. Any such requirement would need to be formally
>> > adopted, proportionate, privacy-preserving, and applied equally to
>> > established and new participants.
>> >
>> > Similar views are not proof of impersonation. If there is concrete
>> evidence
>> > of misconduct, please submit it to the co-chairs. Otherwise, I will not
>> > continue discussing identities or drafting methods.
>> >
>> > Let us return to the policy.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Nonjabulo
>> > -------------- next part --------------
>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> > URL: <
>> >
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260722/1992795c/attachment-0001.html
>> > >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > Message: 2
>> > Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:51:18 +0200
>> > From: JP <froztbyte at froztbyte.net>
>> > To: rpd at afrinic.net
>> > Subject: Re: [rpd] The usage of AI in platforms
>> > Message-ID: <A9B484F0-A3F8-408A-B9DF-7E4FE3E2024D at froztbyte.net>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>> >
>> > On 22 Jul 2026, at 12:15, Mzwakhe Mabasa via RPD wrote:
>> >
>> > > Good day.I would like to post to the RPD mailing list. Kindly allow me
>> > > this opportunity of being part of the RPD afrinic policy decisions.?
>> > >
>> > > While AI is widely used across the internet,  its acceptability
>> > > depends on the specific platform you are referring to . Most social
>> > > networks allow AI assistance, but require the clear labeling of
>> > > AI-generated imagery and ban non-consensual deepfakes or harmful
>> > > content.?LSince platform policies vary greatly, here is a breakdown
>> > > of how the most popular services handle AI usage:
>> > >
>> > >    - Social Media (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube): Generally
>> > > allowed, but social media algorithms penalize low-quality, generic
>> > > content. Major platforms are shifting to automatic detection and
>> > > require synthetic imagery to be appropriately labeled to avoid
>> > > misinformation penalties.?
>> > >
>> > >    - Design & Creative Platforms (Canva): AI usage for brainstorming
>> > > and generating designs is permitted, but platforms typically place
>> > > operational limits on how much AI content you can generate per month.
>> > > Users are responsible for ensuring AI outputs do not mislead others
>> > > and are used in accordance with local copyright laws.?
>> > >
>> > >    - AI Generation Models (Open AI, Midjourney): AI tools are
>> > > permitted, but they enforce strict universal policies. You cannot use
>> > > these services for harassment, defamation, or generating unauthorized
>> > > deepfakes of real people
>> >
>> > to play off an older joke:
>> >
>> > q: ?how do you know someone?s using LLMs??
>> > a: ?they?ll damn well tell you?
>> >
>> > normally I don?t need to pay much attention to rpd because things
>> > don?t move that much, and then the last week? the sloppist tsunami
>> > has been quite notable. and it?s near all this kind of milquetoast
>> > nonsense gibberish. I saw someone else mention the astroturfing
>> > component of things too (and a cursory investigation around the poster
>> > domains for the most vocal proponents there had me raising my eyebrows
>> > most spock-like) but I?ll leave that aside for now
>> >
>> > it?s probably worth rpd considering a full and complete ban on
>> > prompt-generation and prompt-assistance for use on the policy list, with
>> > possibly a poster cooldown/block period (and some way to deal with
>> > repeat offenders and ban evasion).
>> >
>> > there?s both precedent and strong arguments in favour
>> >
>> > precedent: a number of other public-benefit and mass-cooperation
>> > organisations and projects have taken to the hardline block (the most
>> > notable is codeberg, as of earlier today)
>> >
>> > arguments: the most obvious is exactly what has happened in the last
>> > week (and the alternative of no ban is an utter deluge of worthless
>> > noise, which will space-fill as far as it can go). there is also ample
>> > evidence across multiple years and multiple studies that these
>> > technologies are _bad_ at fine detail, and that?s exactly the sort of
>> > thing that is very ill-fitting in the context of what rpd is to be doing
>> >
>> > -J
>> > -------------- next part --------------
>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> > URL: <
>> >
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260722/f83dfe25/attachment-0001.html
>> > >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > Message: 3
>> > Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 15:52:40 +0200
>> > From: Diroi Karalis <diroikaralis at gmail.com>
>> > To: rpd at afrinic.net
>> > Subject: Re: [rpd] Policy supremacy
>> > Message-ID:
>> >         <
>> > CA+wt7VoZ2hQyw6ZiGAAxr-SRTmXaYwjM-xD_aknC2tj+Oqhdig at mail.gmail.com>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> >
>> > Dear Musa,
>> >
>> > Tshepo and Gugu don't need prior recognition from established
>> participants
>> > before their input counts. Joining recently, missing earlier meetings,
>> or
>> > sharing similar views is not evidence of impersonation or bad faith.
>> Anyone
>> > is entitled to join an open process at Last Call and raise objections
>> > before a proposal becomes policy.
>> > KYC would be a significant procedural and privacy change. It can't be
>> > applied selectively to objectors we don't recognize it would need a
>> formal
>> > basis, a clear justification, proper safeguards, and equal application
>> to
>> > every participant, not just the inconvenient ones.
>> > If you have evidence of misconduct, send it to the co-chairs. Otherwise,
>> > engage with Tshepo and Gugu's arguments on their merits. Familiarity
>> isn't
>> > authority, and "the community" isn't a closed circle that gets to decide
>> > who's allowed in.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Diroi
>> > -------------- next part --------------
>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> > URL: <
>> >
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260722/7c67f9fd/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 158
>> > *************************************
>> >
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260722/ba32bf97/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 159
>> *************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RPD mailing list
>> RPD at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260722/66f63c91/attachment-0001.html>