[rpd] [Last Call] AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 — six open questions to those opposing

[Hendrik Visage]

Dear all, and specifically those who have registered opposition — Nia 
Petronella / Nonhlanhla, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko, Gugu Dhlamini, Tshepo 
Masuku, Thulisile Mazomba, Asamkele Menzeleli, Thandeka Mseleku, Nyasha 
Ndemo, Nonjabulo Sphilile, Mphoentle Mokheseng, Phetulo Dhlamini, Mandla 
Matshika, NP Petronella, and colleagues —

The Co-Chairs have asked (21 July, 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015237.html ) that Last 
Call objections be new, fully justified, and that they engage what has 
already been addressed rather than repeat it. In that spirit, six 
concrete questions have been put to the opposition during the discussion 
and Last Call phases and remain unanswered. Restating general positions 
does not answer them. I ask, directly, that those maintaining opposition 
answer these — specifically and on the record.

1. The two-object case (asked by Frank Habicht, 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015076.html , reiterated 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015085.html and in 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015120.html ). An empty 
AS-GOOGLE object exists in the AFRINIC IRR while the populated AS-GOOGLE 
is in RADB. When filter-generation tooling (bgpq4 and similar) resolves 
the name across mirrored sources, what should it do — and how does any 
proposed alternative prevent the resulting mis-filtering, without the 
creation-time hierarchical rule this proposal introduces?

2. Squatting remedy (asked by Hendrik Visage, 19 July, 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015120.html ). Under the 
"less restrictive alternatives" put forward (source-qualified lookups, 
ambiguity rejection, better tooling, warnings, voluntary adoption): what 
remedy does a victim have to get a squatted, same-named AS-SET removed 
from a database they do not control? Name the mechanism.

3. Yes or no (asked by Frank Habicht, 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015123.html ). Do you agree 
the proposal provides an improvement? A direct yes or no, please — the 
question has so far been answered only by implication ( 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015130.html ).

4. The evidence bar (arising from the opposition's own standard, 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015130.html ). Opposition 
has held that the benefit must be "significant enough, proven enough, 
proportionate enough." What specific threshold would satisfy that test? 
Please state the bar you are applying, so it can be measured against the 
documented incidents (MANRS AS-AMAZON, 2022; the live AS-GOOGLE case 
above) and the four other RIRs' adoption.

5. The Impact Assessment (asked by Hendrik Visage, 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015120.html ). The 
published staff Impact Assessment finds minimal member impact, no legal 
and no finance issues, with existing objects untouched. Which specific 
finding in it do you contest, and on what basis? The assertion that "the 
analysis has not been completed" needs to engage the analysis that 
exists.

6. Capacity (asked by Ben Roberts, 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015131.html ; now also 
Co-Chair guidance point 5, 
https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015237.html ). Are you 
contributing in your own individual capacity or on behalf of a resource 
member/organisation? The Co-Chairs' 21 July note asks contributors to 
say so. Please state it.

To be clear on where the substance already stands: the distinction 
between authenticating an object's creation and validating its contents 
is real, it has been conceded by both sides, and it is out of the 
proposal's stated scope — the proposal claims name uniqueness and 
creation authorisation, not membership validity. That point, having been 
answered, does not by itself block consensus (RFC 7282). What remains is 
the six questions above.

If opposition is maintained through the close of Last Call, I ask that 
it be maintained by answering these — not by restating the original 
objections or by moving the discussion to who may participate. A 
concise, on-point answer to any of the six advances the discussion; a 
further restatement does not.

Regards,
Hendrik Visage (AS329532 AS213481)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/f6f0953e/attachment-0001.html>