[rpd] RPD Digest, Vol 225, Issue 36

Wed Oct 14 06:54:25 UTC 2026

Another person that did NOT follow netiquette ;(

Please respond either to the relevant email subject and followup ID in the headers, in short do NOT reply/respond using the digest.
If new subject, AGAIN do NOT reply to the digest, create a NEW subject line accordingly

These responses are the reason we are asking for disabling the digest feature ;(

---
Hendrik Visage
Director/Owner
HeViS.Co Systems t/a Envisage Cloud Solutions
hvisage at hevis.co.za
GSM/SMS/Signal: +27-84-612-5345
InstantMessenger: https://t.me/hvisage

On 14 Oct 2026, at 8:30, Zamaphathwa Phathwa wrote:

> 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
>> ************************************
>>

> _______________________________________________
> 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/20261014/c42dc1d1/attachment-0001.html>