Search RPD Archives
[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 181
Zenalo Mguqulwa
mguqulwazenalo at gmail.com
Thu Jul 23 09:05:39 UTC 2026
Good day,
I agree with Nonhlanhla and Zamaphathwa.
Participation should be treated as input, not as proof of representation,
and familiarity should not become authority to decide who is entitled to
participate. If identity verification is considered necessary, it must be
formally justified. Similarly, concerns about flooding or disruptive
conduct should be assessed against specific messages and objective rules.
They should not be inferred from similar arguments, writing tools,
employment, or unfamiliar names.The simplest way forward is to address
distinct objections on their merits, and leave allegations of misconduct to
the co-chairs on the basis of evidence.
Regards,
Zen
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 at 10:54, <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: RDP Discussion (Ben Roberts - AfriNIC)
> 2. RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 131 (Zamaphathwa Phathwa)
> 3. Re: RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 181 (NP Petronella)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:41:06 +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: <BD338188-D27B-4AF4-81F1-8C3DE494D3DD at afrinic.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/a7ee51cb/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:44:27 +0200
> From: Zamaphathwa Phathwa <zamaphathwaphathwa at gmail.com>
> To: "rpd at afrinic.net" <rpd at afrinic.net>, hvisage at hevis.co.za
> Subject: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 131
> Message-ID:
> <CAL-pF4eHaoSCrgBeM=w_Gh1DwfEER0u_vpDQhB-MD=
> 72D8DLzw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 08:53:33 +0000
> From: NP Petronella <NPertuniaPetronella at outlook.com>
> To: Hendrik Visage <hvisage at hevis.co.za>, "rpd at afrinic.net"
> <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 181
> Message-ID:
> <
> VI2PR09MB7139EF7010F66030C5B01947A4C02 at VI2PR09MB7139.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> 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.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 183
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/6789ba56/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list