Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 181
NP Petronella
NPertuniaPetronella at outlook.com
Thu Jul 23 08:53:33 UTC 2026
Dear Hendrik,
No one is putting words in your mouth. You called unfamiliar objectors "astroturfers", argued that participation should depend on proving “skin in the game,” and proposed KYC as a test of legitimacy. Describing that as gatekeeping is a fair reading of your own words.
I do not oppose identity verification. I previously supported a limited, neutral process. But supporting verification is not the same as giving individual participants authority to investigate or certify others.
Any verification system must have a formal basis, demonstrated necessity, privacy safeguards, neutral administration, and equal application to established and new participants. It should confirm only that a real person controls an account, not impose an industry-experience, affiliation, or viewpoint test.
Until such a process exists, suspicion is not proof and familiarity is not authority. If you have evidence of a specific breach, submit it to the co-chairs. Otherwise, address the policy rather than the eligibility of those questioning it.
Regards,
Nonhlanhla
________________________________
From: Hendrik Visage <hvisage at hevis.co.za>
Sent: Thursday, 23 July 2026 10:41:15
To: NP Petronella <NPertuniaPetronella at outlook.com>
Subject: Re: RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 181
oh you are now putting words on my mouth and acting as a victim, not taking responsibility for your pov!
________________________________
Hendrik Visage
Director/Owner
HeViS.Co Systems t/a Envisage Cloud Solutions
hvisage at hevis.co.za<mailto:hvisage at hevis.co.za>
GSM/SMS/Signal: +27-84-612-5345
InstantMessenger: https://t.me/hvisage
On 23 Jul 2026, at 10:38, NP Petronella wrote:
Dear Hendrik,
I am concerned by the power dynamic in your message.
You have appointed yourself investigator, judge, and gatekeeper, then treated your own suspicions as “prima facie evidence.” That is not how evidence works. A civil standard is applied by an authorised decision-maker after evidence is tested, not declared by a mailing-list participant who has already chosen the verdict.
Your proposed “skin in the game” test is equally troubling. Operational experience is valuable evidence, but it does not give resource holders exclusive ownership of the PDP or authority to classify everyone else as guests. Stakeholders may contribute expertise, questions, warnings, and objections. They do not thereby become principals for the entire community.
What is happening here is a clear power play: disagreement is relabelled as suspicious, suspicion becomes a demand for identity, and identity is then made a condition for being heard. That is mandate laundering in miniature.
If identity verification is genuinely needed, propose it formally. Define its purpose, protect privacy, apply it equally to established and new participants, and place it under neutral administration. It cannot be invented selectively for unfamiliar objectors.
If you have evidence of impersonation, automated flooding, or an actual procedural breach, submit it to the co-chairs. Otherwise, address the arguments.
The PDWG is not a private club, and familiar operators do not get to decide who counts as human, who counts as community, or who has permission to speak.
Regards,
Nonhlanhla
________________________________
From: rpd-request at afrinic.net <rpd-request at afrinic.net>
Sent: Thursday, 23 July 2026 10:23:41
To: rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 181
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: RDP Discussion (Ben Roberts - AfriNIC)
2. Re: RDP Discussion (Ben Roberts - AfriNIC)
3. Re: Policy supremacy (Hendrik Visage)
4. Re: RDP Discussion (Phetulo Dhlamini)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:17:35 +0200
From: Ben Roberts - AfriNIC <ben.roberts at afrinic.net>
To: Nonjabulo Sphilile <nonjabulosphilile at gmail.com>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] RDP Discussion
Message-ID: <CF17BDF0-EF42-4978-A91B-FE8E6B105FA5 at afrinic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Nonjabulo,
Let?s wait for what Mandla has to say? Since he has a job as a policy insights contributor for NRS, he may want his policy insights to be on behalf of NRS right ?
Kind regards
Ben
Sent from my iPhone
> On 23 Jul 2026, at 08:23, Nonjabulo Sphilile <nonjabulosphilile at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ?
> Dear Ben,
>
> I believe in open participation. That means contributors speak for themselves unless they expressly state that they are authorised to represent an organisation.
>
> Mandla?s affiliation with NRS provides context, not a mandate. Assuming every employee speaks for their organisation confuses participation with representation and turns an open PDP into a contest between institutions.
>
> Please assess Mandla?s contribution as his own.
>
> Regards,
> Nonjabulo
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 09:41:27 +0200
From: Ben Roberts - AfriNIC <ben.roberts at afrinic.net>
To: Phetulo Dhlamini <phetulodhlamini at gmail.com>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] RDP Discussion
Message-ID: <67901F2F-CB25-4760-8770-0C05F9543D2F at afrinic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/8a0939cd/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:14:49 +0200
From: Hendrik Visage <hvisage at hevis.co.za>
To: Nonjabulo Sphilile <nonjabulosphilile at gmail.com>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] Policy supremacy
Message-ID: <C84A4712-A49D-41B0-8C23-82177716DE69 at hevis.co.za>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Good Nonjabulo Sphilile,
Hopefully I?m not responding to ChatGPT, but the real Nonjabulo
Sphilile!
The problem that the RDP are facing today, is the mass of objectors,
that nobody knows, have not properly, honestly/truthfully answered the
real questions posed to them, and then keeps spewing a regurgitated
barrage of being victimized and they are the injured and they are? The
word astroturfing by definition doesn?t have an exact forensically
applicable definition to measure, but are evident on the probabilities.
Ie. the same type of evidence and measures that a civil court of law
would apply, not a criminal court as these aren?t criminal cases where
innocence are assumed till proven beyond doubt. Thus, there exist prime
facie evidences that the astroturfers had been succesfully named and
proven.
Now This being and open forum, there should be NO assumption of
anonymity, and I?d state that given the astroturfers, that the
assumption should be, given the nature of AfriNIC, that the request for
KYC would not be a procedural problem for ANY REAL OPERATOR, but only an
issue for the likes of astroturfers that needs to have the puppet-master
hidden/anonymous so that nothing can be pointed back to the puppet-mster
that wants to derail the procedures etc. as the outcomes would have a
negative effect on their operations, I?ll even content that the
reasons for the objections (given the weak arguments answered, and the
evading of questions posed) might be more nefarious instead of actually
objectively for the good of the continent a.k.a. AfriNIC?s
communities.
The idea that your participation to the is a RIGHT, I?ll only defend
if and only if you can show you have a real valid concerns or ?skin in
the game? with regards to AfriNIC, and then your affiliations and
representations are the reasons you might have a right to speak and
object. AfriNIC membership etc (and by that extension I?d say the
right to be heard in the RDP, else you should be acting as a guest, not
a victim) are based on the RESOURCES (AS numbers and/or addresses) you
have been allocated (while being a member in good standing) or need/want
to be allocated to you. As such that is the reason we?d like to know
how you, as a new comer have *real* interest in these matters, not just
that you have a *claimed* objection .. and when questioned, you deflect
;(
---
Hendrik Visage
Director/Owner
HeViS.Co Systems t/a Envisage Cloud Solutions
hvisage at hevis.co.za
GSM/SMS/Signal: +27-84-612-5345
InstantMessenger: https://t.me/hvisage
On 22 Jul 2026, at 15:45, Nonjabulo Sphilile wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260723/6fda32e0/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:23:41 +0200
From: Phetulo Dhlamini <phetulodhlamini at gmail.com>
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] RDP Discussion
Message-ID:
<CAABFmSnLACSr3N9_QZOoiTvXH0RF5Vn+vXt5h7vSzwa4C1R76w at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Dear Ben,
No, I am not saying that I am affiliated with NRS, nor that Mandla and I
are the same person.
I replied because I was making a general point, using Mandla?s situation as
an example: a participant?s affiliation does not automatically make their
personal contribution an organisational position. Mandla can speak for
himself, and I speak only for myself.
This is a public discussion. Responding to a point does not require being
the person originally addressed.
Regards,
Phetulo
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026, 08:43 Phetulo Dhlamini, <phetulodhlamini at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> No, you should not make that assumption.
>
> I participate in the PDP in my personal capacity and speak for myself
> unless I expressly state that I am authorised to represent an organisation.
> My affiliation provides context; it does not turn every contribution into
> an NRS position.
>
> Treating employment as automatic representation confuses a stakeholder
> with a principal and misunderstands how open PDP participation works.
>
> Regards,
> Phetulo
>
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2026, 07:40 Ben Roberts - AfriNIC, <ben.roberts at afrinic.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Phetulo,
>>
>> My email message was to Mandla who had already stated his NRS
>> affiliation. I?m slightly confused by your reply to the message addressed
>> to him. Are you also saying you are NRS affiliated, or that you and Mandla
>> are the same person ?
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Ben
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On 23 Jul 2026, at 07:32, Phetulo Dhlamini <phetulodhlamini at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > ?
>> > Hi Ben,
>> >
>> > No, you should not make that assumption.
>> >
>> > I participate in the PDP in my personal capacity and speak for myself
>> unless I expressly state that I am authorised to represent an organisation.
>> My affiliation provides context; it does not turn every contribution into
>> an NRS position.
>> >
>> > Treating employment as automatic representation confuses a stakeholder
>> with a principal and misunderstands how open PDP participation works.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Phetulo
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/47abdb2c/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 181
*************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/70cfbae3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list