[rpd] [External] Re: [Pdwg-chairs] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02

[Hytham El-Nakhal]

Dear PDWG,


Thank you to everyone participating in the discussions.
I want to clarify for all participants that AFRINIC as Regional Internet Registry,  set up the  RPD Mailing List as one arm of its  bottom-up self-governance structure for setting regional policies for IP resources. The list allows discussions on such policies for managing and distribution of IP number resources in the AFRINIC service region. These policies eventually impact Resource Members in the region and the latter are also expected to participate actively in policy development.
Those contributing on the mailing list also continue to do so during the Public Policy Meetings (PPM) during which rough consensus is assessed on the proposals being discussed. During these PPM meetings, the AFRINIC PDWG also gets to meet and match faces to email addresses.
The PDWG is expected to continuously grow as AFRINIC encourages its stakeholders to join in the policy discussions and onboarding of those interested to the PDP is done via webinars that are also publicly available.
The individuals participating are encouraged to stay on-topic and contribute positively to the discussions , even when they disagree with the proposals.

 In respect of the diversity and compliance with the use of English as language, the individuals may have appropriate tools, such as AI, for personal summarization or proofreading their contributions to the policy discussions.
However, in the past week as I said before, I have observed that some individuals in the community when opposing policy proposals have used a concerted approach and possibly AI tool to create a systematic, repetitive, hollow, and at times technically irrelevant exchange on one of the three policy proposals that have reached Last Call.  In 2020, this was also experienced on a technical policy but at a lesser cadence.

I therefore request the posters on this list to be mindful of the time, effort and intellect of those individuals who have either brought forward a policy proposal that addresses a problem that is being faced , or contributed to the discussions (support or oppose) or been following the discussions through the emails they receive. Your contribution remains valuable as long as it adheres to the Code of Conduct, focus on the policy proposals and objections if any should be justified (not repeated without rationale justification). The RPD mailing list should not be used as a ground for other debates other than the policies discussion. If the PDWG believes that creating a new Mail-List to discuss topics not directly related to the policies under discussion is more beneficial for all to let the rpd ML be as usual focused only on the policies discussions, let Policy Liaison Team at AFRINIC know.


Regards,

Haitham el Nakhal

PDWG Co-Chairs


________________________________
From: Ben Roberts - AfriNIC via Pdwg-chairs <pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 11:28 AM
To: Lu Heng
Cc: pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net; rpd List; Mike Burns
Subject: [External] Re: [Pdwg-chairs] [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02

I think we are broadly in agreement Lu,

Using AI tools for drafting is something that humans can do and nobody here seems to object to that. Myself and Hendrik and others have freely acknowledged using Claude to analyse the mailing list content also.

But what has occurred here has been a co-ordinated list flooding campaign, possibly (highly likely) by fully automated AI bots. It’s filled a lot of inboxes and really annoyed a lot of people, and caused others to switch off just unable to digest such huge volumes of slop.

Kind regards
Ben

Sent from my iPhone

On 24 Jul 2026, at 10:01, Lu Heng <h.lu at anytimechinese.com> wrote:



The discussion is focused on the wrong unit. What matters is not whether a message was drafted by a human or an AI, but whether it contributes a distinct, relevant, and evidence-based argument. The correct moderation targets are duplication, flooding, irrelevance, and unsupported claims—not the drafting tool. The practical solution is straightforward: place the policy, or each disputed clause, in the centre of a web interface; display the arguments for and against it on either side; and use AI to maintain a continuous summary, cluster repeated arguments, and identify genuinely new ones. Anyone should be free to submit a new argument or supporting evidence, while every AI classification remains visible and appealable. A basic prototype could be built in a day.

Whether humans should retain a monopoly over argumentation is a separate question. They have no principled claim to such a monopoly once machines can competently compare, organize, and summarize arguments at scale. More importantly, a human-only process does not preserve openness. Repeated interaction tends to produce a small, self-selecting clique that determines whose language, identity, and participation count, excludes outsiders, and eventually becomes insular and cult-like. This is mandate laundering: control over procedure is converted into an illegitimate claim of substantive authority. Once that happens, formal openness ceases to provide legitimacy. The RIR system may continue to exist in name, but its bottom-up model will have effectively ended.



--
Kind regards.
Lu


On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 12:24 Ben Roberts - AfriNIC via RPD <rpd at afrinic.net<mailto:rpd 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 <rpd at afrinic.net<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 <noah at neo.co.tz<mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2026 1:41 PM
To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com<mailto:mike at iptrading.com>>
Cc: Hytham El-Nakhal <hytham at tra.gov.eg<mailto:hytham at tra.gov.eg>>; pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net<mailto:pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net>; rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net<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, <mike at iptrading.com<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 <noah at neo.co.tz<mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2026 1:26 PM
To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com<mailto:mike at iptrading.com>>
Cc: Hytham El-Nakhal <hytham at tra.gov.eg<mailto:hytham at tra.gov.eg>>; pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net<mailto:pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net>; rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net<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, <mike at iptrading.com<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 <noah at neo.co.tz<mailto:noah at neo.co.tz>>
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2026 10:03 AM
To: Mike Burns <mike at iptrading.com<mailto:mike at iptrading.com>>
Cc: Hytham El-Nakhal <hytham at tra.gov.eg<mailto:hytham at tra.gov.eg>>; pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net<mailto:pdwg-chairs at afrinic.net>; rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net<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, <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

_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
_______________________________________________
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net<mailto:RPD at afrinic.net>
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd