[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 189

Thu Jul 23 15:05:54 UTC 2026

Dear colleagues,

I honestly think there is a reasonable middle ground here.

The list should not be allowed to become unusable. If an account is posting at automated volume, repeatedly sending the same message, or deliberately disrupting discussion, the co-chairs should address that conduct under clear rules.

But I would not support blocking new email addresses or unfamiliar participants as a category. The 2020 experience already showed why election safeguards and policy participation must be kept separate. Elections count votes; rough consensus evaluates distinct arguments and unresolved concerns.

Claude or ChatGPT does not need an independent "seat." The accountable participant is the person who reviews the text, submits it, and stands behind it. An autonomous bot flooding the list can be blocked. A human using a drafting tool should have the contribution judged on relevance, evidence, and clarity, like everyone else.

Repeated arguments can be consolidated without excluding the people raising them. That protects the list while avoiding the much greater danger of turning moderation into a mechanism for deciding who qualifies as "the community."

My position is therefore simple: moderate proven disruption, consolidate repetition, encourage concise engagement, and keep the forum open to new participants. Moderation should preserve participation, not narrow it according to familiarity, subscription date, or drafting method.

Regards,
Nonhlanhla

________________________________
From: rpd-request at afrinic.net <rpd-request at afrinic.net>
Sent: Thursday, 23 July 2026 17:01:41
To: rpd at afrinic.net <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 189

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: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
      behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 (Mike Burns)
   2. Re: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observedbehavioron
      AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 (Mike Burns)
   3. Re: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavior
      on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 (Fundiswa Nadia Maseko)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:50:27 -0400
From: "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com>
To: "'Noah'" <noah at neo.co.tz>
Cc: pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net, 'rpd List' <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
        behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02
Message-ID: <027601dd1ab2$9982cd10$cc886730$@iptrading.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Noah,

I have made it clear from the outset that list swamping or use of AI to generate duplicative, though reworded objections is grounds for moderation.

That issue, which I was at pains to separate from the use of AI, continues to be conflated with the simple use of AI.

That brings me to ad hominem, which is the basis of my belief and which you have failed in your reply.

Ad hominem means that the speaker of an argument is of no importance when considering the argument.

When you ask my for my motive, you breach that.

Regards,

Mike

From: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2026 10:03 AM
To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
Cc: Hytham El-Nakhal <hytham at tra.gov.eg>; pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net; rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02

On Wed, 22 Jul 2026, 8:53?pm Mike Burns, <mike at iptrading.com <mailto:mike at iptrading.com> > wrote:

It?s not like Claude will be elected to any parliament.

But this unique governance form for a global asset provides the opportunity.

I say, who cares if Claude is posting, or ChatGPT, or any other AI.

I care that the AFRINIC rpd list is not turned into waste land of AI powered trolls

Give them a seat at the table and address their arguments.

How many valid argument have been made in the past week or you mean a single argument repeated through AI generated texts send by single persons using multiple different email address or same group saying the same thing over and over feeding the troll....

I have not experienced this behaviour on the ARIN or RIPE lists or even APNIC for which we are both participants..

Why are you advocating for it in the AFRNIC service region....?

Cheers,

./noah

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/286ddead/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 10:59:33 -0400
From: "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com>
To: "'Mike Silber'" <silber.mike at gmail.com>,    <rpd at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding
        observedbehavioron      AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02
Message-ID: <028e01dd1ab3$df1d2400$9d576c00$@iptrading.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi Mike,

Those are excellent questions, and I think it lies within the moderators? mandate to block emails making the same argument incessantly, sockpuppets or not.

I think we should rely on moderator judgement while we hopefully see better-crafted AI arguments.

I trust the moderators have the tools necessary to discern and act when they see reworded arguments offered repetitively.

Regards,
Mike

From: Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2026 10:43 AM
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observedbehavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02

Hi Mike B

On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 2:39?PM Mike Burns via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net <mailto:rpd at afrinic.net> > wrote:

I agree that swamping the list should be subject to moderation, and it
already is.

Indeed - but I think clearer parameters for moderation will be helpful to avoid accusations of partiality.

But the more important question to me, is if Claude comes up with a winning
argument, should we ignore or discount it?

Definitely not. I have no issue with AI generated or supplemented / edited positions.

I think the verbosity and repetition of these posts will work against them
in the long run as effective use of AI tools.
But if they can shorten and clarify their arguments, and resist the urge to
repeat them slightly differently, I would listen to them.

I agree that the current verbose and repetitive positing is not endearing these posters to the community or showing any compelling arguments. The simplistic view is that this is an unsophisticated campaign using various sockpuppet accounts to try to create the perception of large scale dissent.

But what if it is actually a sophisticated campaign to drown out other participation, cause list members to unsubscribe or withdraw in frustration that can then lead to the "capture" of the process by hollowing out positive contributions?

Mike S

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/8c76b3e3/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:01:08 +0200
From: Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2 at gmail.com>
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
        behavior        on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02
Message-ID:
        <CABV0QcSOX-RzmtKOdtrSuxS51g5iHToNFQ8Qg86bGmqCGF2fxg at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear colleagues,

I agree that repetitive posts and list flooding should be moderated.
However, I don't think the use of AI should, on its own, determine how a
contribution is viewed.

AI is simply a tool. The participant is still responsible for reviewing,
understanding, and standing behind what they submit. In the end, what
matters is whether the argument is clear, relevant, and technically sound.

If moderation is needed, it should be based on conduct and the quality of
participation, not on the tools someone used to draft their message.

Kind regards,
Fundiswa Nadia Maseko

On Thu, 23 Jul 2026, 16:44 , <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: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
>       behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 (Mike Burns)
>    2. Fw: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavior
>       on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 (NP Petronella)
>    3. Re: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
>       behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 (Noah)
>    4. Re: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
>       behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 (Mike Silber)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 08:38:45 -0400
> From: "Mike Burns" <mike at iptrading.com>
> To: "'Frank Habicht'" <geier at geier.ne.tz>,      <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
>         behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02
> Message-ID: <020d01dd1aa0$33beba50$9b3c2ef0$@iptrading.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> HI Frank,
>
> Thanks for playing Devil's Advocate, I think that is a worthwhile effort.
>
> I agree that swamping the list should be subject to moderation, and it
> already is.
> But the more important question to me, is if Claude comes up with a winning
> argument, should we ignore or discount it?
>
> I think the verbosity and repetition of these posts will work against them
> in the long run as effective use of AI tools.
> But if they can shorten and clarify their arguments, and resist the urge to
> repeat them slightly differently, I would listen to them.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Habicht <geier at geier.ne.tz>
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2026 12:37 AM
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
> behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02
>
> Hi,
>
> On 7/22/2026 8:53 PM, Mike Burns via RPD wrote:
> [snip]
> > I say, who cares if Claude is posting, or ChatGPT, or any other AI.
> >
> > Give them a seat at the table and address their arguments.
> >
> > Giving them a veneer of humanness through identity appropriation is
> > not the way forward.
> >
> > Again, I am interested in hearing other perspectives.
>
> I'd like to hear what should happen if then two Claudes are arguing at
> 5000 email per hour and eventually one Claude wins the argument, and
> AfriNIC
> will have to implement a policy that e.g. bans you from posting here?
>
> Frank
> Devil's advocate
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 13:30:13 +0000
> From: NP Petronella <NPertuniaPetronella at outlook.com>
> To: "Rpd at afrinic.net" <Rpd at afrinic.net>, "mike at iptrading.com"
>         <mike at iptrading.com>
> Subject: [rpd] Fw: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
>         behavior on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02
> Message-ID:
>         <
> VI2PR09MB7139828F4B931D6A9D51C9F1A4C02 at VI2PR09MB7139.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> ________________________________
> 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-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:03:02 +0300
> From: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>
> To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com>
> Cc: pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net, rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
>         behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAEqgTWZVdRe+kfxUjevob2w4PurLzzY4r8DjNKq1-wABf8S0gQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2026, 8:53?pm Mike Burns, <mike at iptrading.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > It?s not like Claude will be elected to any parliament.
> >
> > But this unique governance form for a global asset provides the
> > opportunity.
> >
> > I say, who cares if Claude is posting, or ChatGPT, or any other AI.
> >
> I care that the AFRINIC rpd list is not turned into waste land of AI
> powered trolls
>
> Give them a seat at the table and address their arguments.
> >
>
> How many valid argument have been made in the past week or you mean a
> single argument repeated through AI generated texts send by single persons
> using multiple different email address or same group saying the same thing
> over and over feeding the troll....
>
> I have not experienced this behaviour on the ARIN or RIPE lists or even
> APNIC for which we are both participants..
>
> Why are you advocating for it in the AFRNIC service region....?
>
> Cheers,
> *.**/noah*
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/fd504aad/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:43:25 +0200
> From: Mike Silber <silber.mike at gmail.com>
> To: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed
>         behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAE-cm4LvzxAERypoy2a16SUniYQA_+heXqPnC-YG6gNYtUvp7Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Mike B
>
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 2:39?PM Mike Burns via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I agree that swamping the list should be subject to moderation, and it
> > already is.
> >
>
> Indeed - but I think clearer parameters for moderation will be helpful to
> avoid accusations of partiality.
>
>
> > But the more important question to me, is if Claude comes up with a
> winning
> > argument, should we ignore or discount it?
> >
>
> Definitely not. I have no issue with AI generated or supplemented / edited
> positions.
>
> >
> > I think the verbosity and repetition of these posts will work against
> them
> > in the long run as effective use of AI tools.
> > But if they can shorten and clarify their arguments, and resist the urge
> to
> > repeat them slightly differently, I would listen to them.
> >
>
> I agree that the current verbose and repetitive positing is not endearing
> these posters to the community or showing any compelling arguments. The
> simplistic view is that this is an unsophisticated campaign using various
> sockpuppet accounts to try to create the perception of large scale dissent.
>
> But what if it is actually a sophisticated campaign to drown out other
> participation, cause list members to unsubscribe or withdraw in frustration
> that can then lead to the "capture" of the process by hollowing out
> positive contributions?
>
> Mike S
>
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/ef969099/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 188
> *************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/d2039abe/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 189
*************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260723/7f8c8733/attachment-0001.html>