[rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal - Hierarchical Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)

[Hendrik Visage]

Good day Christian, Arnaud,

I appreciate the spirit of your messages, and I agree that Last Call
should run to its scheduled close. Arnaud, I especially agree with your
words: our community advances through ARGUMENTS, not through postures!

=> Let us apply exactly that test here.

On the process point first, respectfully: the PDP (CPM Section 3, as the
Co-Chairs referenced on 21 July) has no post-Last-Call negotiation phase.
After the close, the Co-Chairs determine whether rough consensus exists on
the record, and the proposal proceeds — or does not — on that basis.
"Exploring a compromise afterwards" presumes the outcome is deadlock
before the Co-Chairs have even had time or opportunity to properly assess
anything.

And the record does not show a deadlock; it shows an unanswered side. The
one technical objection raised (attribution vs content validity) was
agreed by both sides to be outside the proposal's stated scope. The
operational-route question has been answered on-list several times. The
six specific questions put to those opposing on 23 July
(https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015344.html) have received
only one substantive response.

In the PDP, compromise takes the form of concrete text amendments. Arnaud,
your own proposal's thread this very week shows what that looks like: Jaco
proposed specific alternative wording for the IPv6 criteria after
discussing it in person with Mark
(https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015276.html). That is
genuine disagreement doing its work — arguments producing text. On this
proposal, in eleven days of Last Call, no one opposing has named a single
amendment they would accept — only objection after objection. That
difference is the whole story, and it is the difference between argument
and posture.

Until the close of Last Call, if somebody proposes a specific amendment,
I believe this Working Group will engage it on its merits, as it has
engaged every substantive point so far. Without any amendment proposal,
the community should trust the Co-Chairs to assess the record as it
stands, per their guidance last week.

A renegotiation prompted by volume rather than by substance would set
exactly the precedent this Working Group should not set.

Regards,
Hendrik Visage (AS329532; also AS213481)