[rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02

Fri Jul 24 11:47:24 UTC 2026

Hi Ben,

I have seen and read all of these verbose messages and I have not commented on them directly

While I might be, in your mind, trivializing the matter I think you are doing the opposite.  If this was the first foray into this usage of llms I think it is not going to benefit the users very much.  I don't find that they have changed many minds through the use of these tools and in fact have engendered a great deal of ire.

So rather than overreact to this I think we should recognize it, acknowledge it , let the posters know that these posts are not effective and wait to see if natural incentives and disincentives change things before moving towards filtering or gatekeeping the list members.

I have been very careful to differentiate abuse of the list from use of llms.

Regards,

Mike

 ---- On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 23:21:05 -0400  ben.roberts at afrinic.net  wrote ----

Mike,You are trivialising the issue as a mere AI content problem. If it were just a case that some people are using AI writing tools then we would not be having this debate. 

What we have seen is a co-ordinated Astroturfing attack of multiple anonymous gmails, bombarding the list with near identical yet largely meaningless essays all backing each other up. There may have been humans with keyboards sitting owning the gmails, but I’ve seen no evidence of “proof of life” behind the accounts. Not even basic pleasantries (e.g. “hello how are you”) or variation from the monotonic robot style. If it looks like an AI robot, quacks like an AI robot, then guess what, 9 times out of 10 it’s an AI robot.  
So it’s entirely very probable that they are just AI agent robots running on Openclaw instances that are fully in control of the Gmail accounts. Or it could just be one Openclaw controlling multiple Gmails, which would explain the “hive mind” like co-ordinated and recycled paragraphs that are word for word recycled by member accounts of the collective. The “community” for policy development is supposed to be a community of humans. The known identifiable humans in the collective seem to have concencus that none of us have a problem with other known humans using AI tools to assist their writing. 
It will be very easy to modify the CoC to clarify that list membership is restricted to real old fashioned humans sitting with computer gadgets that they use to post the list, while excluding autonomous computer devices running their own writing/posting programs in absence of human creativity. 

Kind regards
Ben

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Jul 2026, at 22:09, Mike Burns via RPD < mailto:rpd at afrinic.net > wrote:

Hi Noah,

Yes you are telling everybody that you have had enough of it. Fair enough.

Yes, I am seeing no issue using AI unless it is used at cross-purposes of the list. 
I don’t think the use of AI in this context has reached that level, and also I don’t think it has been very effective.

I think in the future AI will write more effective messages to the list, with or without human intervention.
I will read those effective messages and argue against, or accept the arguments made.

Regards,
Mike

From: Noah < mailto:noah at neo.co.tz > 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2026 1:41 PM
To: Mike Burns < mailto:mike at iptrading.com >
Cc: Hytham El-Nakhal < mailto:hytham at tra.gov.eg >; mailto:pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net ; rpd List < mailto:rpd at afrinic.net >
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02

I did not say you commented on as-set issue..

The co-chair initiated this thread per subjectline which is related to hierarchical names for new as-set draft policy AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02.

The co-chair openning statement read... in quote

"The mailing list has recently been flooded with multiple emails stating either the same duplicate objections or consistent pushbacks to every post, some of them with subject line containing ‘Digest’."

The above is an outcome of folks outsourcing their thinking to AI and endlessly trolling using multiple emails and sockpuppets to bombard the rpd list.

You are talking about usage of AI and seeing no issue with it.

I am telling you I have had enough of it.

Cheers,

./noah

On Thu, 23 Jul 2026, 8:29 pm Mike Burns, < mailto:mike at iptrading.com > wrote:

Hi Noah,

I have made no comments on the AS-SET issue and tried to create a separate discussion thread for AI.

Regards,
Mike

From: Noah < mailto:noah at neo.co.tz > 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2026 1:26 PM
To: Mike Burns < mailto:mike at iptrading.com >
Cc: Hytham El-Nakhal < mailto:hytham at tra.gov.eg >; mailto:pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net ; rpd List < mailto:rpd at afrinic.net >
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02

Hi Mike

What AI generated arguments will possibly change the facts that as-set collision is an issue.

Havent we already documented the fact that as-set names collide across IRR databases and AI/Claude have nothing to do with this fact.

When merging across IRR databases, havent we ack that collisions have resulted in ambiguity, empty or conflicting objects that cause tools to return incorrect or empty filter data. How is this AI/Claude problem? 

Havent other RIR implemented, hierarchical naming, some through policy others through operational implementations to bind new as-set to a specific ASN holder. Did they consult AI/Claude while at it?

Havent folks agreed that going forward we fix the issue at the moment of creation of new as-sets the only point at which an authoritative registry can prevent new instances of collision problem. I dont see how this is AI/claude concern nor how AI will be involved in technically fixing the problem even those outsourcing their thinking to claude to oppose what we want to fix wont be on the ground to fix the issue. 

Cheers,

./noah

On Thu, 23 Jul 2026, 5:50 pm Mike Burns, < mailto:mike at iptrading.com > wrote:

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 < mailto:noah at neo.co.tz > 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2026 10:03 AM
To: Mike Burns < mailto:mike at iptrading.com >
Cc: Hytham El-Nakhal < mailto:hytham at tra.gov.eg >; mailto:pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net ; rpd List < mailto: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, < 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

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
mailto: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/20260724/e2a5ad17/attachment-0001.html>