<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/xhtml; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body><div style="font-family: sans-serif;"><div class="markdown" style="white-space: normal;">
<p dir="auto">Dear all, and specifically those who have registered opposition — Nia Petronella / Nonhlanhla, Fundiswa Nadia Maseko, Gugu Dhlamini, Tshepo Masuku, Thulisile Mazomba, Asamkele Menzeleli, Thandeka Mseleku, Nyasha Ndemo, Nonjabulo Sphilile, Mphoentle Mokheseng, Phetulo Dhlamini, Mandla Matshika, NP Petronella, and colleagues —</p>
<p dir="auto">The Co-Chairs have asked (21 July, <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015237.html" style="color: #3983C4;">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015237.html</a> ) that Last Call objections be new, fully justified, and that they engage what has already been addressed rather than repeat it. In that spirit, six concrete questions have been put to the opposition during the discussion and Last Call phases and remain unanswered. Restating general positions does not answer them. I ask, directly, that those maintaining opposition answer these — specifically and on the record.</p>
<ol>
<li>
<p dir="auto">The two-object case (asked by Frank Habicht, <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015076.html" style="color: #3983C4;">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015076.html</a> , reiterated <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015085.html" style="color: #3983C4;">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015085.html</a> and in <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015120.html" style="color: #3983C4;">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015120.html</a> ). An empty AS-GOOGLE object exists in the AFRINIC IRR while the populated AS-GOOGLE is in RADB. When filter-generation tooling (bgpq4 and similar) resolves the name across mirrored sources, what should it do — and how does any proposed alternative prevent the resulting mis-filtering, without the creation-time hierarchical rule this proposal introduces?</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">Squatting remedy (asked by Hendrik Visage, 19 July, <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015120.html" style="color: #3983C4;">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015120.html</a> ). Under the "less restrictive alternatives" put forward (source-qualified lookups, ambiguity rejection, better tooling, warnings, voluntary adoption): what remedy does a victim have to get a squatted, same-named AS-SET removed from a database they do not control? Name the mechanism.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">Yes or no (asked by Frank Habicht, <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015123.html" style="color: #3983C4;">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015123.html</a> ). Do you agree the proposal provides an improvement? A direct yes or no, please — the question has so far been answered only by implication ( <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015130.html" style="color: #3983C4;">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015130.html</a> ).</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">The evidence bar (arising from the opposition's own standard, <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015130.html" style="color: #3983C4;">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015130.html</a> ). Opposition has held that the benefit must be "significant enough, proven enough, proportionate enough." What specific threshold would satisfy that test? Please state the bar you are applying, so it can be measured against the documented incidents (MANRS AS-AMAZON, 2022; the live AS-GOOGLE case above) and the four other RIRs' adoption.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">The Impact Assessment (asked by Hendrik Visage, <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015120.html" style="color: #3983C4;">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015120.html</a> ). The published staff Impact Assessment finds minimal member impact, no legal and no finance issues, with existing objects untouched. Which specific finding in it do you contest, and on what basis? The assertion that "the analysis has not been completed" needs to engage the analysis that exists.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p dir="auto">Capacity (asked by Ben Roberts, <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015131.html" style="color: #3983C4;">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015131.html</a> ; now also Co-Chair guidance point 5, <a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015237.html" style="color: #3983C4;">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/2026/015237.html</a> ). Are you contributing in your own individual capacity or on behalf of a resource member/organisation? The Co-Chairs' 21 July note asks contributors to say so. Please state it.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p dir="auto">To be clear on where the substance already stands: the distinction between authenticating an object's creation and validating its contents is real, it has been conceded by both sides, and it is out of the proposal's stated scope — the proposal claims name uniqueness and creation authorisation, not membership validity. That point, having been answered, does not by itself block consensus (RFC 7282). What remains is the six questions above.</p>
<p dir="auto">If opposition is maintained through the close of Last Call, I ask that it be maintained by answering these — not by restating the original objections or by moving the discussion to who may participate. A concise, on-point answer to any of the six advances the discussion; a further restatement does not.</p>
<p dir="auto">Regards,<br>
Hendrik Visage (AS329532 AS213481)</p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>