[rpd] Fw: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavior on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02

[NP Petronella]

________________________________
From: NP Petronella
Sent: Thursday, 23 July 2026 15:25:26
To: rpd-request at afrinic.net <rpd-request at afrinic.net>; mike at iptrading.com <mike at iptrading.com>
Subject: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavior on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02


Hi Mike,

I think that is a fair approach. A strong argument should not be discounted because a tool helped express it, just as a weak argument should not gain weight merely because someone typed it unaided.

The 2020 experience offers a useful distinction. Where voting was involved, eligibility controls were considered because votes are counted. Policy discussion is different: rough consensus should assess distinct arguments, not subscription dates or the number of similar messages.

Repeated points can be consolidated, and actual list-swamping can already be moderated. At the same time, newer participants and AI-assisted contributions should still be judged on clarity, relevance, and evidence.

That seems the balanced position: moderate conduct, not tools; reduce repetition, not participation; and keep the focus on the argument rather than the author.

Regards,
Nonhlanhla
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/caa1697e/attachment.html>