[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 225, Issue 36

Wed Oct 14 06:30:55 UTC 2026

Dear PDWG colleagues,

*Replying to, Forum for Policy Discussions?, Protecting Meaningful
Participation in the RPD*

I believe this discussion raises a much broader issue than the use of email
digests. We need to distinguish between the misuse of a communication
feature and the underlying problem affecting meaningful participation in
the Policy Development Working Group.

The concern regarding AI-generated responses and automated agents
participating in mailing-list discussions should not be dismissed. However,
neither should we rush towards restricting existing features without first
establishing the nature and extent of the problem.

*The issue is not simply whether AI is being used, but whether
contributions genuinely reflect the understanding, reasoning and position
of the individuals submitting them.*

A mailing list exists to facilitate discussion, exchange of ideas and the
development of policies through meaningful participation. Where automated
systems begin generating responses without sufficient human oversight,
there is a legitimate concern that discussions may become saturated with
repetitive, irrelevant or misleading contributions. This risks undermining
the quality of deliberations and placing an unnecessary burden on
participants who engage in good faith.

At the same time, we must be careful not to confuse the use of technology
as an assistance tool with the replacement of human participation. AI can
assist with language, accessibility and the organisation of information.
The concern arises when automation compromises accountability, genuine
engagement and compliance with established mailing-list practices.

Consequently, removing the digest feature should not be treated as the
default solution. We should first establish whether the problem can be
addressed through clearer posting guidelines, transparent moderation
procedures and proportionate measures against demonstrable abuse.

I would also caution against relying exclusively on automated detection to
determine whether a contribution was generated by AI. Such systems can
produce inaccurate results, and legitimate participants should not face
restrictions merely because their writing appears automated or because they
use assistive technology.

*The central question is how the RPD can preserve open participation while
ensuring that its discussions remain substantive, accountable and
human-directed.*

I therefore encourage the Working Group to consider a clear framework
addressing:

   1.

   *Human accountability:* Every contribution should remain the
   responsibility of the individual submitting it, regardless of the tools
   used to prepare it.
   2.

   *Meaningful participation:* Members should be expected to engage with
   the substance of policy proposals rather than contribute repetitive or
   irrelevant material.
   3.

   *Fair and proportionate moderation:* Any restrictions should be based on
   identifiable conduct and established rules, with an opportunity for the
   affected participant to respond.
   4.

   *Protection of legitimate access:* Measures introduced to address abuse
   should not unnecessarily disadvantage members who rely on digest delivery,
   assistive technologies or other legitimate communication arrangements.
   5.

   *Evidence-based decision-making:* Before removing an established
   mailing-list feature or introducing new restrictions, the Working Group
   should identify the specific problem, assess its impact and consider less
   restrictive alternatives.

Ultimately, we should not allow the discussion to become a choice between
unrestricted automation and the removal of useful communication features.
Both approaches risk overlooking the real issue: maintaining a
policy-development process in which contributions are relevant,
participants are accountable and decisions are reached through genuine
engagement.

The integrity of the RPD depends not only on the technology used to
communicate, but also on the quality of participation and the fairness of
the procedures governing it.

I welcome further discussion on how we can address these concerns without
undermining the accessibility and openness of the Policy Development
Process.

Kind regards,
Zamaphathwa Phathwa

On Tue, Oct 13, 2026 at 2:01 PM <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: Updated Proposal - PDP Working Group (WG) Guidelines and
>       Procedures AFPUB-2026-GEN-001-DRAFT02 (Noah)
>    2.  Forum for policy discussions? (Sylvain BAYA)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 15:10:44 +0300
> From: Noah <noah at neo.co.tz>
> To: rpd List <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: Re: [rpd] Updated Proposal - PDP Working Group (WG)
>         Guidelines and Procedures AFPUB-2026-GEN-001-DRAFT02
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAEqgTWYkAF-b3v2qvA-QBg3M5HW_8WDydKiCAeYkQVPTTzZk2A at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Dear Working Group
>
>
> Please kindly take some time out of your very important busy schedule to
> review the draft proposal.
>
> Our colleagues have put in really some work and we hope we can engage and
> move this proposal forward for the benefit of the PDP.
>
> Cheers,
> *.**/noah*
>
>
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2026, 2:21?pm Hytham El-Nakhal, <hytham at tra.gov.eg> wrote:
>
> > Dear PDWG,
> >
> >
> > We have received an update to the draft policy proposal - PDP Working
> > Group (WG) Guidelines and Procedures ID AFPUB-2026-GEN-001-DRAFT02 from
> > authors Gr?goire EHOUMI ,Noah Maina and Adeola A. P. AINA
> >
> >
> > The updated proposal contents are published at:
> > https://www.afrinic.net/afpub-2026-gen-001-draft02
> >
> >
> > We encourage you to take some time to go through the proposal contents
> and
> > provide feedback as follows:
> > a) Do you support or oppose the proposal?
> > b) If you oppose the proposal, state your reasons?
> > c) Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> > d) What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
> >
> > You will also be able to refer to all the previous versions of this
> > proposal here -
> >
> > <https://www.afrinic.net/afpub-2026-gen-001-draft02#revision-history>
> > https://www.afrinic.net/afpub-2026-gen-001-draft02#revision-history
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Haitham El Nakhal and Darwin da Costa
> > PDWG Co-Chairs
> > Policy Development Working Group - AFRINIC
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > RPD mailing list
> > 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/20261012/4d107fbf/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 15:51:07 +0100
> From: Sylvain BAYA <baya.sylvain at cmnog.cm>
> To: Hendrik Visage <hvisage at hevis.co.za>, Jaco Kroon via RPD
>         <rpd at afrinic.net>, RPD <rpd at afrinic.net>
> Subject: [rpd]  Forum for policy discussions?
> Message-ID: <A192526B-9716-426D-A85C-2A4999B6B190 at cmnog.cm>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Le 12 octobre 2026 11:25:16 GMT+01:00, Hendrik Visage via RPD <
> rpd at afrinic.net> a ?crit?:
> >
> >
> >On 12 Oct 2026, at 12:02, Sylvain BAYA wrote:
> >
> >> Le 8 octobre 2026 12:49:02 GMT+01:00, Jaco Kroon via RPD <
> rpd at afrinic.net> a ?crit?:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> If people stop using digests the problem would sort itself out on the
> spot.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Dear Jaco,
> >> Thanks for your email; brother!
> >>
> >> ...imho! it's not a matter of existance of
> >> a particular *feature*; which particularly
> >> exists for a *good* reason.
> >
> >The only reason for digests, I?ll contend to not be relevant in the RPD
> case as mentioned in another email
> >
>
> Hi Henrik,
>
> Thanks for your email; brother :-)
> ...my suspicion is that, there are other
> acceptable usages; in the RPD mailing
> list context. That's why i have suggested
> to look at it more than twice ;-)
>
> For example:
> |-1. if you are a PDWG member, and you
> | read your RPD emails on weekly basis
> | (which is, imho, compatible with Policy
> | Development lifecycle);
> |-2. then nothing prevent you to:
> |-3. contribute effectively;
> |-4. because you still have the ability to
> | send an appropriately wrote email in
> | response to only the topic/thread you
> | chose to respond to.
> | etc.
>
> In my understanding, again, the feature
> availability/existance is not the *cause*
> of the *effects* some of us denounced...
> and/or agreed to be *abusive* behavior.
>
> >
> >> What i suspect is that: some use of that
> >> feature may result to an abuse behavior.
> >>
> >> If we observed it; then the recommended
> >> reaction, imho, should be to look at the
> >> causes and apply an appropriate fix.
> >
> >The cause:
> >1) Humans not following Netiquette
> >
>
> ...we should be reminded that:
> human being *disabilities*, regarding
> Netiquette acceptance, may not actually
> be our main concern.
>
> The main risk we are actually facing is:
> "humans to become unable to effectively
> participate to RPD discussions; due to AI based agents invasion".
>
> ...and,
> that should mostly concern us; at least
> more than a feature *misusedability*.
>
> ...as said: we should not set a precedent;
> on which we are not ready to deal with
> possible outcomes :'-(
>
> >
> >2) Humans feeding digests into LLM/AI/SI instead of the real email thus
> causing the issue.
> >
>
> Right! they certainly do! they shouldn't; imho.
>
> ...imho, if a human is doing that, it's not
> only because there is no other mean to
> automate (i) mailbox analysis, (ii) email
> response writing and (iii) posting to the
> appropriate mailing list.
>
> They would have first changed the mail
> delivery option; which allows a mailing
> list subscriber to receive separate emails
> on its mailbox.
>
> ...my fear is that: removing the feature
> may cause more harm than good.
>
> >
> >I do have the theory that the use of the digests are also to hide the
> intentions or methods of entities that is out to frustrate AfriNIC and the
> RPD
> >
>
> ...well! i suspect that your theory is *not*
> a sort of void conspiracy one; then this
> is the inference i can draw based on it:
>
> <proposed_procedure>
> Dgst#1. If an email is in response to a
> digest email; then
> Dgst#2. Hold it;
> Dgst#3. Run a script; in order to check
> for AI-based agent/automaton behavior;
> then
> Dgst#4. If (Dgst#3.) confirmed; then do
> the followings:
> Dgst#4.1 Send an email to the sender
> with guidelines on how to appropriately
> post on mailinglists, including how to
> acceptably deal with digest emails.
> Dgst#4.2 Drop that email or keep it on
> an alternative *ai-bad-posting* public archive.
> Dgst#4.3 Remove posting rights when
> same poster keeps its posting trend for
> at least three times.
> Dgst#5. If not (Dgst#3.) confirmed; then
> do the followings:
> Dgst#5.1 Do the same as on Dgst#4.1;
> Dgst#5.2 Do the same as on Dgst#4.3,
> for a *reasonable* waiting time.
> </proposed_procedure>
>
> >
> >> ...i propose to look at it twice or more;
> >> because, we need to avoid to easily set
> >> a precedent.
> >> We should note that, next time our preferred *feature* would be abused
> by
> >> some *exceptional* use; then next step
> >> would be obviously to call for removing it.
> >
> >Where the ?Feature? is not adding value
> >
>
> Please see above; for some usecase; i'm
> considering that those affected users
> may become disadvantaged in the avent
> the *culprit* feature is dismantled :-/
>
> >
> > or absolute minimal given the use of archives and LLMs/AI/SI, and all
> the while the feature is a source of abuse and frustration, I?ll be the
> first to vote for the removal.
> >
>
> ...i would be the first to d?fend your right
> to vote; brother :-)
> but; as you know! voting helps not on the
> PDWG ;-)
>
> >
> >In this case, I?m content that the actual value is near minimal in the
> age of copilot/claude/clawd/etc. and (given the prevalence and increasing
> use of AI/SI/LLMs/Copilot/clawd/claude/hermes/etc. for doing exactly what
> digests are good for) will become more and more a source of frustration
> rather than adding value.
> >
>
> Interesting! regarding frustration...
> Do kindly allow to state again what i forsee as what we might fear the
> most
> for the RPD mailing list participation:
>
> <do-not-read-twice>
> The main risk we are actually facing is:
> "humans to become unable to effectively
> participate to RPD discussions; due to AI based agents invasion".
> </do-not-read-twice>
>
> >
> >> This is not what we want?
> >>
> >> ...i recall that, there is this old resource:
> >>
> >> The rules of netiquette | Software Reference
> >> ::
> https://web.archive.org/web/20120710021154/http://www.swref.com/story/20090705/the_rules_of_netiquette
> >>
> >> Etiquette in technology#Netiquette
> >> :: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_in_technology#Netiquette
> >
> >
> >Problem: the LLMs/AI/SI doesn?t adhere to that ;(
> >We have seen that the past 6months ;(
> >
>
> ...thanks for voicing for us! i'm definitely
> not supporting both:
> (i) AI-based email
> response writing and
> (ii) AI-agentic email management where
> humans' Working Group (WG) mailing lists
> are the destination address.
>
> It's a serious risk; on my understanding,
> at least :'-(
>
> ...i hope as a human-based WG, we would
> be able to correctly address that kind of
> subtile so-called "human replacement"
> attempt/initiative.
>
> Hope it makes more sense now; brother.
>
> Shalom,
> --sb.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of RPD Digest, Vol 225, Issue 36
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20261014/b49937cd/attachment-0001.html>