<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;}
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;}
@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 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'>Those are excellent questions, and I think it lies within the moderators’ mandate to block emails making the same argument incessantly, sockpuppets or not.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I think we should rely on moderator judgement while we hopefully see better-crafted AI arguments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I trust the moderators have the tools necessary to discern and act when they see reworded arguments offered repetitively.<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><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'> Mike Silber <silber.mike@gmail.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 23, 2026 10:43 AM<br><b>To:</b> rpd@afrinic.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observedbehavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Mike B<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 2:39<span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'> </span>PM Mike Burns via RPD <<a href="mailto:rpd@afrinic.net">rpd@afrinic.net</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-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal><br>I agree that swamping the list should be subject to moderation, and it<br>already is.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Indeed - but I think clearer parameters for moderation will be helpful to avoid accusations of partiality.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <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-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal>But the more important question to me, is if Claude comes up with a winning<br>argument, should we ignore or discount it?<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Definitely not. I have no issue with AI generated or supplemented / edited positions.<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-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal><br>I think the verbosity and repetition of these posts will work against them<br>in the long run as effective use of AI tools.<br>But if they can shorten and clarify their arguments, and resist the urge to<br>repeat them slightly differently, I would listen to them.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I agree that the current verbose and repetitive positing is not endearing these posters to the community or showing any compelling arguments. The simplistic view is that this is an unsophisticated campaign using various sockpuppet accounts to try to create the perception of large scale dissent.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>But what if it is actually a sophisticated campaign to drown out other participation, cause list members to unsubscribe or withdraw in frustration that can then lead to the "capture" of the process by hollowing out positive contributions?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Mike S<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-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>