[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 131

[Zamaphathwa Phathwa]

Dear Andrew and Mike,

Two separate issues are being mixed together.

If someone is genuinely flooding the list, impersonating others, or
deliberately disrupting discussion, the co-chairs should address that
conduct under neutral rules. But similar arguments, unfamiliar names,
AI-assisted drafting, or LinkedIn profiles do not prove coordination or bad
faith. Suspicion is not evidence.

Andrew, I also disagree that an objection is valid only when it proves
immediate operational harm. A proposal may be technically workable and
still be unnecessary, disproportionate, or the wrong instrument. Scope,
reversibility, and expansion of registry enforcement are legitimate policy
concerns. Saying that necessity is irrelevant is precisely how procedure
begins manufacturing its own mandate.

Mike, list traffic can be managed through threading, reasonable posting
limits, and consolidation of repeated issues. The co-chairs may treat
several similar messages as one substantive objection without treating the
participants themselves as illegitimate. Calling ordinary AI-assisted
participation a potential “DDoS” risks turning moderation into gatekeeping
before any disruptive conduct has been proven.

The tool is not the participant. The person who reviews, submits, and
stands behind the message is.

Rough consensus should be based on distinct arguments and evidence, not
reputation, professional affiliation, writing style, or assumptions about
which software was used.

Regards,
Zamaphathwa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/9d0f8e4d/attachment.html>