<div dir="auto">Hi Frank,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Certainly.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">One technical argument is that hierarchical naming improves the uniqueness of AS-SET names, but it does not verify the correctness, authorization, or currency of the routing information contained within those AS-SET objects.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As a result, while the proposal may reduce namespace collisions, it does not address the accuracy of the routing policy data that operators ultimately rely on when generating filters.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That is a technical observation about the scope and limitations of the mechanism being proposed. From there, the policy question is whether that improvement, on its own, justifies making hierarchical naming mandatory.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Regards, </div><div dir="auto">Fundiswa Nadia Maseko</div><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, 20 Jul 2026, 00:17 Fundiswa Nadia Maseko, <<a href="mailto:fundiswanadia2@gmail.com">fundiswanadia2@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><p>Dear Frank,</p><p>Thank you for your response.</p><p>I disagree with your conclusion that opponents have presented no technical arguments. Whether an argument is ultimately persuasive is different from whether it is technical.</p><p>My point remains that hierarchical naming may reduce namespace collisions, but it does not verify that the contents of an AS-SET are accurate, current, or authorised. The correctness of generated filters still depends on the quality of the underlying registry data. That is a technical limitation of what the proposal can achieve.</p><p>Likewise, the assertion that the proposal improves stability is a claim that should be supported by technical reasoning and operational evidence. Explaining what failures are prevented, what risks remain, and why this is the least restrictive solution would strengthen that case.</p><p>My intention is not to dismiss the proposal, but to test whether it has been sufficiently justified. That is an important part of the policy development process. Reasonable people may disagree on the answers, but I do not believe that makes the questions themselves any less technical.</p><p><br></p><p>Kind regards, </p><p>Fundiswa Nadia Maseko</p>
<p><br></p></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 19 Jul 2026, 21:38 , <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
<a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
<br>
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
<br>
<br>
Today's Topics:<br>
<br>
1. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical Names<br>
for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Frank Habicht)<br>
2. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical Names<br>
for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Gugu Dhlamini)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2026 22:30:01 +0300<br>
From: Frank Habicht <<a href="mailto:geier@geier.ne.tz" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">geier@geier.ne.tz</a>><br>
To: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical<br>
Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:f6a5c61c-624c-4b5b-adc7-fec9e55234f4@geier.ne.tz" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">f6a5c61c-624c-4b5b-adc7-fec9e55234f4@geier.ne.tz</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed<br>
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
inline ...<br>
<br>
On 7/19/2026 7:55 PM, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko wrote:<br>
> *Dear PDWG,*<br>
> <br>
> I have been following this discussion with interest, and I would like to <br>
> express my concern about the direction it has taken.<br>
<br>
Sorry. I'm just trying to ppoint out that I don't consider some argument <br>
to be good arguments.<br>
<br>
> The Policy Development Process should evaluate technical arguments on <br>
> their merits.<br>
<br>
Honestly, I've seen a lot of claimed so-called "technical arguments". I <br>
haven't seen anything I would call technical arguments from the <br>
opponents of the policy. Can you give one using technical facts?<br>
<br>
[snip]<br>
> I am also concerned by suggestions that contributions should be <br>
> disregarded simply because of assumptions about how they were written. <br>
<br>
I'm assuming you refer to this:<br>
>> This also relates to the broader ?stability fallacy?: the assumption<br>
>> that more structure, more policy, or more institutional mechanisms<br>
>> necessarily create more stability.<br>
><br>
> For those that understand what is proposed, we also understand that<br>
> this<br>
> creates more stability and it is not an assumption.<br>
><br>
> Please don't assume that we are assuming.<br>
<br>
You see how this was not about "how they were written". It was about <br>
Gugu Dhlamini calling the argument for the policy an assumption, which <br>
is incorrect.<br>
<br>
It is very uncool to call a technical argument an assumption.<br>
It is also required then to call-out this incorrectness.<br>
And you mixing these up and misrepresenting is also not good.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
> If there are factual or technical errors, they should be identified and <br>
> discussed. That is how consensus is strengthened.<br>
<br>
you would have mentioned any factual or technical errors if you would <br>
have found one. You haven't.<br>
<br>
I just have to conclude you don't want to understand.<br>
<br>
But the policy process here should know that you didn't have any arguments.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Frank<br>
again, all typed myself ;-)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2026 21:37:18 +0200<br>
From: Gugu Dhlamini <<a href="mailto:gugudhlamini343@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">gugudhlamini343@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <<a href="mailto:fundiswanadia2@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fundiswanadia2@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical<br>
Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CADMrvbNtVKScodZ84VcCrhHVNoXU+jysnSt2+3m9nBnOX-Xp=<a href="mailto:w@mail.gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">w@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Hi Saul,<br>
<br>
Yes, the message was sent twice. That is a posting mistake, not a policy<br>
argument.<br>
<br>
Focusing on duplicate delivery while ignoring the substance is exactly how<br>
process starts replacing discussion. Please address the objection itself<br>
rather than using a technical error as a reason to dismiss participation.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Gugu<br>
<br>
On Sun, 19 Jul 2026, 9:29 pm Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <<a href="mailto:fundiswanadia2@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fundiswanadia2@gmail.com</a>><br>
wrote:<br>
<br>
> Thank you for pointing that out.<br>
><br>
> The two emails were intended for different purposes. The first was a<br>
> direct response to Hendrik's points, while the second was addressed to the<br>
> broader discussion, including your comments and the wider issue that had<br>
> developed on the mailing list.<br>
><br>
> I understand they were sent close together, which may have made them<br>
> appear to be duplicates, but they were intended as separate responses.<br>
><br>
> Kind regards,<br>
><br>
> Fundiswa Nadia Maseko<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sun, 19 Jul 2026, 21:20 Saul Stein, <<a href="mailto:saul@enetworks.co.za" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">saul@enetworks.co.za</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Hi<br>
>><br>
>> you have now posted the email twice 7 minutes apart?<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> *From:* Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <<a href="mailto:fundiswanadia2@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fundiswanadia2@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, 19 July 2026 20:46<br>
>> *To:* <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
>> *Subject:* Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical<br>
>> Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Dear Hendrik, Saul, and colleagues,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Thank you for your responses.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I would also like to address the recurring comments about AI-generated<br>
>> contributions.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Whether someone uses AI to improve grammar, structure, or clarity does<br>
>> not, in itself, determine whether their arguments are valid. AI only works<br>
>> with the information and instructions provided by the person using it. Many<br>
>> people use it as a writing assistant to communicate their ideas more<br>
>> clearly, just as others may ask a colleague to proofread or edit a draft<br>
>> before sending it.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> For that reason, I do not believe the discussion should focus on how a<br>
>> message was written, but rather on whether the technical reasoning is<br>
>> correct or incorrect.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> With regard to the proposal itself, I appreciate Hendrik's direct<br>
>> answers. However, simply answering "yes" or "no" does not, by itself,<br>
>> explain the technical reasoning behind those conclusions. It would be<br>
>> helpful to understand why the proposal is considered the least restrictive<br>
>> solution and how the identified operational benefits outweigh the<br>
>> additional policy requirements. That explanation would assist everyone in<br>
>> evaluating the proposal on its technical merits.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> I believe the PDWG is strongest when differing views are examined through<br>
>> technical discussion supported by evidence, rather than assumptions about<br>
>> who wrote a message or what tools they may have used.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Kind regards,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Fundiswa Nadia Maseko<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2026, 20:34 , <<a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
>> <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
>><br>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
>> <a href="mailto:rpd-request@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd-request@afrinic.net</a><br>
>><br>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
>> <a href="mailto:rpd-owner@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd-owner@afrinic.net</a><br>
>><br>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
>> than "Re: Contents of RPD digest..."<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Today's Topics:<br>
>><br>
>> 1. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical Names<br>
>> for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Hendrik Visage)<br>
>> 2. Re: [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical Names<br>
>> for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02) (Saul Stein)<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> Message: 1<br>
>> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2026 20:25:00 +0200<br>
>> From: Hendrik Visage <<a href="mailto:hvisage@hevis.co.za" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">hvisage@hevis.co.za</a>><br>
>> To: Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <<a href="mailto:fundiswanadia2@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fundiswanadia2@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> Cc: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical<br>
>> Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)<br>
>> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:24327C8E-E411-4D2F-BE55-F250691CD720@hevis.co.za" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">24327C8E-E411-4D2F-BE55-F250691CD720@hevis.co.za</a>><br>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"<br>
>><br>
>> Dear Fundiswa,<br>
>><br>
>> ?Has the proposal demonstrated mandatory naming is the least<br>
>> restrictive solution?" ? Yes,<br>
>><br>
>> "Do you disagree that hierarchical naming authenticates object creation<br>
>> rather than membership accuracy?" ? No.<br>
>><br>
>> These are the specific answers requested.<br>
>> If you still oppose this proposal, we ask that you engage these answers<br>
>> first ? in particular the deployment-coordination asymmetry raised ?<br>
>> instead of repeating the original objections without technical<br>
>> substances<br>
>><br>
>> ---<br>
>> Hendrik Visage<br>
>> Director/Owner<br>
>> HeViS.Co Systems t/a Envisage Cloud Solutions<br>
>> <a href="mailto:hvisage@hevis.co.za" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">hvisage@hevis.co.za</a><br>
>> GSM/SMS/Signal: +27-84-612-5345<br>
>> InstantMessenger: <a href="https://t.me/hvisage" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://t.me/hvisage</a><br>
>><br>
>> On 19 Jul 2026, at 19:54, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> > Dear Ben,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Thank you for your response.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Respectfully, I believe it is more productive to address the arguments<br>
>> > themselves than to make assumptions about the people presenting them<br>
>> > or the<br>
>> > tools they may have used.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > If you believe the objections are technically incorrect, I would<br>
>> > appreciate<br>
>> > it if you could identify which specific points you disagree with. For<br>
>> > example, do you disagree that hierarchical naming authenticates object<br>
>> > creation rather than the accuracy of object membership? Or do you<br>
>> > believe<br>
>> > the proposal has demonstrated that mandatory naming is the least<br>
>> > restrictive solution available?<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Those are technical questions that can be examined and debated.<br>
>> > Dismissing<br>
>> > opposing views as "AI bots" does not, on its own, explain why the<br>
>> > arguments<br>
>> > are wrong.<br>
>> > I believe the PDWG benefits most when participants engage with the<br>
>> > substance of each other's reasoning, regardless of how a contribution<br>
>> > was<br>
>> > drafted.<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > Kind regards,<br>
>> > Fundiswa Nadia Maseko<br>
>> ><br>
>> > On Sun, 19 Jul 2026, 19:13 Ben Roberts - AfriNIC,<br>
>> > <<a href="mailto:ben.roberts@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">ben.roberts@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>> > wrote:<br>
>> ><br>
>> >> Fundiswa,<br>
>> >> But the AI bots opposing the AS-SET policy aren?t making technical<br>
>> >> arguments. They are just regurgitating and re-using the same script.<br>
>> >> None<br>
>> >> of them seem to know or care what an AS-SET is, or what network<br>
>> >> owners use<br>
>> >> them for.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Cheers,<br>
>> >> Ben<br>
>> >> Sent from my iPhone<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On 19 Jul 2026, at 17:56, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko<br>
>> >> <<a href="mailto:fundiswanadia2@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fundiswanadia2@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >> wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> ?<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> *Dear PDWG,*<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I have been following this discussion with interest, and I would like<br>
>> >> to<br>
>> >> express my concern about the direction it has taken.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> The Policy Development Process should evaluate technical arguments on<br>
>> >> their merits. Whether a participant drafted a message unaided,<br>
>> >> received<br>
>> >> editorial assistance, or used modern writing tools does not determine<br>
>> >> whether the reasoning is sound. Speculating about authorship instead<br>
>> >> of<br>
>> >> addressing the substance risks distracting the Working Group from the<br>
>> >> policy questions before it.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I am also concerned by suggestions that contributions should be<br>
>> >> disregarded simply because of assumptions about how they were<br>
>> >> written. If<br>
>> >> there are factual or technical errors, they should be identified and<br>
>> >> discussed. That is how consensus is strengthened.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> The questions raised by several participants remain legitimate<br>
>> >> subjects<br>
>> >> for technical debate: whether the proposal has demonstrated<br>
>> >> operational<br>
>> >> necessity, whether the proposed intervention is proportionate, and<br>
>> >> whether<br>
>> >> less restrictive alternatives have been adequately considered.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I therefore encourage all participants to continue engaging with the<br>
>> >> substance of the proposal while maintaining the respectful and<br>
>> >> professional<br>
>> >> standards expected within the PDWG.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Kind regards,<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Fundiswa Nadia Maseko<br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> RPD mailing list<br>
>> >> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
>> >> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>><br>
>> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> > RPD mailing list<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
>> > <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
>> -------------- next part --------------<br>
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
>> URL: <<br>
>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260719/3805216e/attachment-0001.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260719/3805216e/attachment-0001.html</a><br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>> ------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> Message: 2<br>
>> Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2026 18:34:04 +0000<br>
>> From: Saul Stein <<a href="mailto:saul@enetworks.co.za" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">saul@enetworks.co.za</a>><br>
>> To: Hendrik Visage <<a href="mailto:hvisage@hevis.co.za" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">hvisage@hevis.co.za</a>>, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:fundiswanadia2@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fundiswanadia2@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> Cc: "<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical<br>
>> Names for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)<br>
>> Message-ID:<br>
>> <<br>
>> <a href="mailto:JNAP275MB125812327DC4FFF2404C216E8EC42@JNAP275MB1258.ZAFP275.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">JNAP275MB125812327DC4FFF2404C216E8EC42@JNAP275MB1258.ZAFP275.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM</a><br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
>><br>
>> Dear all,<br>
>> Well, I have just finished my popcorn? sadly there wasn?t enough to read<br>
>> the bombardment of emails, so I didn?t.<br>
>><br>
>> What I did see though, was a number of non-original / cvopy and paste<br>
>> objections. Not only that, but more importantly, they do not raise any<br>
>> valid concerns about the proposal that has reached final call.<br>
>><br>
>> So with that in mind, I fully support this proposal.<br>
>><br>
>> I?d have to be part of a community group where you have to have a valid<br>
>> NIC to post?<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
>> Saul<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> From: Hendrik Visage via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>> Sent: Sunday, 19 July 2026 20:25<br>
>> To: Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <<a href="mailto:fundiswanadia2@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fundiswanadia2@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> Cc: <a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">rpd@afrinic.net</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [rpd] [Last Call] Draft Policy Proposal ? Hierarchical Names<br>
>> for New AS-SETs (AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02)<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Dear Fundiswa,<br>
>><br>
>> ?Has the proposal demonstrated mandatory naming is the least restrictive<br>
>> solution?" ? Yes,<br>
>><br>
>> "Do you disagree that hierarchical naming authenticates object creation<br>
>> rather than membership accuracy?" ? No.<br>
>><br>
>> These are the specific answers requested.<br>
>> If you still oppose this proposal, we ask that you engage these answers<br>
>> first ? in particular the deployment-coordination asymmetry raised ?<br>
>> instead of repeating the original objections without technical substances<br>
>><br>
>> ________________________________<br>
>><br>
>> Hendrik Visage<br>
>> Director/Owner<br>
>> HeViS.Co<<a href="http://HeViS.Co" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://HeViS.Co</a>> Systems t/a Envisage Cloud Solutions<br>
>> <a href="mailto:hvisage@hevis.co.za" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">hvisage@hevis.co.za</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:hvisage@hevis.co.za" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">hvisage@hevis.co.za</a>><br>
>> GSM/SMS/Signal: +27-84-612-5345<br>
>> InstantMessenger: <a href="https://t.me/hvisage" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://t.me/hvisage</a><<a href="https://t.me/hvisage" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://t.me/hvisage</a>><br>
>><br>
>> On 19 Jul 2026, at 19:54, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko wrote:<br>
>> Dear Ben,<br>
>><br>
>> Thank you for your response.<br>
>><br>
>> Respectfully, I believe it is more productive to address the arguments<br>
>> themselves than to make assumptions about the people presenting them or the<br>
>> tools they may have used.<br>
>><br>
>> If you believe the objections are technically incorrect, I would<br>
>> appreciate it if you could identify which specific points you disagree<br>
>> with. For example, do you disagree that hierarchical naming authenticates<br>
>> object creation rather than the accuracy of object membership? Or do you<br>
>> believe the proposal has demonstrated that mandatory naming is the least<br>
>> restrictive solution available?<br>
>><br>
>> Those are technical questions that can be examined and debated.<br>
>> Dismissing opposing views as "AI bots" does not, on its own, explain why<br>
>> the arguments are wrong.<br>
>> I believe the PDWG benefits most when participants engage with the<br>
>> substance of each other's reasoning, regardless of how a contribution was<br>
>> drafted.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Kind regards,<br>
>> Fundiswa Nadia Maseko<br>
>><br>
>> On Sun, 19 Jul 2026, 19:13 Ben Roberts - AfriNIC, <<br>
>> <a href="mailto:ben.roberts@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">ben.roberts@afrinic.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:ben.roberts@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">ben.roberts@afrinic.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
>> Fundiswa,<br>
>> But the AI bots opposing the AS-SET policy aren?t making technical<br>
>> arguments. They are just regurgitating and re-using the same script. None<br>
>> of them seem to know or care what an AS-SET is, or what network owners use<br>
>> them for.<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>> Ben<br>
>> Sent from my iPhone<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 19 Jul 2026, at 17:56, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <<a href="mailto:fundiswanadia2@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fundiswanadia2@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:fundiswanadia2@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">fundiswanadia2@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>> ?<br>
>><br>
>> Dear PDWG,<br>
>><br>
>> I have been following this discussion with interest, and I would like to<br>
>> express my concern about the direction it has taken.<br>
>><br>
>> The Policy Development Process should evaluate technical arguments on<br>
>> their merits. Whether a participant drafted a message unaided, received<br>
>> editorial assistance, or used modern writing tools does not determine<br>
>> whether the reasoning is sound. Speculating about authorship instead of<br>
>> addressing the substance risks distracting the Working Group from the<br>
>> policy questions before it.<br>
>><br>
>> I am also concerned by suggestions that contributions should be<br>
>> disregarded simply because of assumptions about how they were written. If<br>
>> there are factual or technical errors, they should be identified and<br>
>> discussed. That is how consensus is strengthened.<br>
>><br>
>> The questions raised by several participants remain legitimate subjects<br>
>> for technical debate: whether the proposal has demonstrated operational<br>
>> necessity, whether the proposed intervention is proportionate, and whether<br>
>> less restrictive alternatives have been adequately considered.<br>
>><br>
>> I therefore encourage all participants to continue engaging with the<br>
>> substance of the proposal while maintaining the respectful and professional<br>
>> standards expected within the PDWG.<br>
>><br>
>> Kind regards,<br>
>><br>
>> Fundiswa Nadia Maseko<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> RPD mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><<br>
>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> RPD mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><mailto:<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a>><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><<br>
>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a>><br>
>> -------------- next part --------------<br>
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
>> URL: <<br>
>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260719/f1cb5a98/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260719/f1cb5a98/attachment.html</a><br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>> ------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> Subject: Digest Footer<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> RPD mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> ------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>> End of RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 71<br>
>> ************************************<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
> RPD mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
><br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260719/f73a0e8b/attachment.html" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260719/f73a0e8b/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:RPD@afrinic.net" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">RPD@afrinic.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 76<br>
************************************<br>
</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div>