<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style></head><body lang=EN-US link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Hi Nonjablulo,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I want to be clear that AI DDos is the same as automated flooding. AI can generate non-duplicative prompts more quickly and easily than anything else, which provide a tool for list-swamping.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>What that can do is render the list unusable. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Note that I do not see that happening in any current conversations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>And as I pointed out, existing procedures can take care of list flooding, whether AI generated or not.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I thought I was clear that absent the flooding I called a DDoS, all arguments should be considered on their merits.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I personally don’t care where the argument comes from.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Regards,<br>Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> Nonjabulo Sphilile <nonjabulosphilile@gmail.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 20, 2026 12:02 PM<br><b>To:</b> rpd@afrinic.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] Writing tools<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Mike,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The “AI DDoS” analogy is the wrong category. Participants are not packets, and disagreement is not an attack on the process.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The list may regulate actual conduct such as automated flooding, impersonation, excessive duplication, or deliberate disruption. It should not infer abuse from writing style or from the use of a drafting tool. A person who reviews, submits, and stands behind a message remains responsible for it.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Any guideline must therefore be tool-neutral and based on measurable behaviour. Otherwise process management becomes a mechanism for filtering unfamiliar or inconvenient voices while established participants continue to define what counts as legitimate participation.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Rough consensus is not protected by narrowing the room. It is protected by identifying distinct issues, answering them on their merits, and refusing to turn procedural control into institutional mandate.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I oppose any rule that treats AI assistance itself as presumptive misconduct.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Regards,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Nonjabulo<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>