<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=us-ascii"><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;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
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;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}
@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=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Hi Nonjabulo,<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'>You seem to continue to miss the context of my comment about “</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Denial of Service sort of attack” which was explicitly framed in the context of swamping the list.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I also mentioned “But unless there is an attempt by an individual to swamp the list, the posts should be treated as if written by the poster, that is like every other post.”<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'>And I think there has been support for this separation of the “AI” issue into more digestible pieces.<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 don’t want AI to be used as a tool to generate so many copies of the same argument in slightly different words WITH AN INTENT TO SWAMP THE LIST, and we know it is quite capable of that.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Why not a simple +1 comment if you want your argument noted and it has already been stated by another?<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'>However, as I have also said, I have not seen any deployment of AI in this manner in the current discussions, and my comment was broader in target.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Sorry for any confusion and I hope I have answered your concern. <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 don’t want AI generated messages to overwhelm any policy list, but I don’t care if list members employ AI as a writing tool.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>In some ways it could be an improvement.<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 1:36 PM<br><b>To:</b> Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com><br><b>Cc:</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>Hi Mike,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Your clarification does not remove my concern. Calling AI-assisted participation a potential “DDoS” still frames the tool as suspicious before any disruptive conduct has occurred.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Existing rules already address flooding. Moderation should respond to proven behaviour, not hypothetical assumptions about technology. Otherwise, process management becomes gatekeeping.<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><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, 20 Jul 2026, 18:14 Mike Burns, <<a href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com">mike@iptrading.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Hi Nonjablulo,</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>What that can do is render the list unusable. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Note that I do not see that happening in any current conversations.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>And as I pointed out, existing procedures can take care of list flooding, whether AI generated or not.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I personally don’t care where the argument comes from.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Regards,<br>Mike</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='font-size:11.0pt'> </span><o:p></o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><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 <</span><a href="mailto:nonjabulosphilile@gmail.com" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>nonjabulosphilile@gmail.com</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>> <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 20, 2026 12:02 PM<br><b>To:</b> </span><a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net" target="_blank"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>rpd@afrinic.net</span></a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] Writing tools</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Dear Mike,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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 style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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 style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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 style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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 style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I oppose any rule that treats AI assistance itself as presumptive misconduct.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Nonjabulo<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>