<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<p><span style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_MSFontService, -apple-system, Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Dear colleagues,</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_MSFontService, -apple-system, Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Mike raises a fair point about including the previous message when replying. However, I was one of the people
who only realised later that using the <b>“Reply all”</b> function helps preserve the recipients and maintain greater consistency across the discussion. With several parallel threads covering similar issues, it is also quite easy to lose track of which argument
is being answered and where the conversation has moved.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_MSFontService, -apple-system, Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">That may explain some of the inconsistent reply practices, even though it does not make them any less frustrating
for readers. Clearer guidance on quoting the relevant part of the previous message, keeping the subject line consistent, and consolidating related arguments would probably help everyone, whether or not they use an LLM.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_MSFontService, -apple-system, Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The détente Mike describes seems sensible: reduce unnecessary posting volume, while continuing to assess contributions
according to their relevance, distinctiveness, and supporting evidence rather than the tool used to draft them.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_MSFontService, -apple-system, Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">As Seun has previously emphasised the importance of mentorship, perhaps mentorship could also be useful here.
Some participants may simply need guidance on mailing-list conventions, reply structure, and how to engage effectively without overwhelming the discussion. Who knows, a little guidance may prove more productive than immediately assuming bad faith or moving
towards stricter controls.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_MSFontService, -apple-system, Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Regards,</span></p>
<div style="margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; font-family: Aptos, Aptos_MSFontService, -apple-system, Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" dir="auto">
Tshepo <br>
</div>
<div dir="auto" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_MSFontService, -apple-system, Roboto, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(33, 33, 33);">
<br>
</div>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> rpd-request@afrinic.net <rpd-request@afrinic.net><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, 24 July 2026 14:52:39<br>
<b>To:</b> rpd@afrinic.net <rpd@afrinic.net><br>
<b>Subject:</b> RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 197</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:11pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Send RPD mailing list submissions to<br>
rpd@afrinic.net<br>
<br>
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
rpd-request@afrinic.net<br>
<br>
You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
rpd-owner@afrinic.net<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. Subject: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed<br>
behavior on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 (Taye Medoye)<br>
2. Re: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavior<br>
on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 (Fundiswa Nadia Maseko)<br>
3. Re: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed<br>
behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02 (Mike Burns)<br>
<br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 1<br>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:43:34 +0200<br>
From: Taye Medoye <daniel.medoye@gmail.com><br>
To: rpd@afrinic.net<br>
Cc: pdwg-chairs@afrinic.net<br>
Subject: [rpd] Subject: PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding<br>
observed behavior on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CACXLxYfbnA=Yqs-2PxOKS1zcjwc9kRt4gt4VwzGjK9PBYMwD0w@mail.gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Dear colleagues,<br>
<br>
Thank you, Mike and Ben. I agree with Lu?s central point that the<br>
discussion risks focusing on the wrong unit of analysis.<br>
<br>
The relevant question is not whether a contribution was drafted by a<br>
person, assisted by an LLM, or produced through some degree of automation.<br>
The relevant question is whether it presents a distinct, relevant, and<br>
evidence-based argument. If a message is repetitive, irrelevant,<br>
unsupported, or part of excessive list traffic, that conduct should be<br>
addressed directly. The drafting tool should not become a substitute for<br>
assessing the actual quality and effect of the contribution.<br>
<br>
Ben is right that flooding can make a mailing list unusable and discourage<br>
participation. However, describing the activity as a coordinated campaign<br>
by automated bots requires evidence. We should not turn a reasonable<br>
concern about volume into a broader presumption against AI-assisted<br>
participation. Mike?s distinction between the use of LLMs and abuse of the<br>
list is therefore important, although I would go further: rather than<br>
relying only on informal incentives, we should consider improving the<br>
structure through which arguments are received and evaluated.<br>
<br>
For example, disputed policies or clauses could be presented in a shared<br>
interface, with arguments for and against them organised clearly. AI could<br>
be used to summarise the discussion, group substantially similar<br>
submissions, identify genuinely new arguments, and connect claims to<br>
supporting evidence. Contributors would remain free to submit arguments,<br>
while classifications and summaries should be visible, explainable, and<br>
open to appeal. That would address repetition and volume without excluding<br>
participants merely because of the tools they use.<br>
<br>
There is also a broader governance concern. A process does not remain<br>
genuinely open merely because anyone may technically join a mailing list.<br>
Over time, repeated participation can produce a small, self-selecting group<br>
that controls the accepted language, procedures, and boundaries of<br>
participation. When procedural familiarity is treated as substantive<br>
authority, openness becomes more symbolic than real. This is precisely why<br>
moderation systems must be transparent, contestable, and focused on the<br>
merit of arguments rather than the identity, style, or tools of the<br>
contributor.<br>
<br>
The practical objective should therefore be to improve signal, reduce<br>
duplication, and preserve meaningful participation. We can achieve that<br>
through content-based standards, transparent moderation, and better tools<br>
for organising debate. Filtering or gatekeeping people according to whether<br>
they use AI would address the wrong problem and risk narrowing, rather than<br>
protecting, the bottom-up character of the community.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Taye.<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260724/ae837e65/attachment-0001.html">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260724/ae837e65/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 14:45:17 +0200<br>
From: Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2@gmail.com><br>
To: rpd@afrinic.net<br>
Cc: pdwg-chairs@afrinic.net<br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed<br>
behavior on AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02<br>
Message-ID:<br>
<CABV0QcTJW-OLF9wTeF2FKgzPTYkBRE4JgTOZC6u42RB4Txop5g@mail.gmail.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
Dear Ben,<br>
<br>
Thank you for your clarification.<br>
<br>
I think there is an important distinction between using AI to help draft a<br>
message and using automation to flood a mailing list. The issue, in my<br>
view, is not AI itself, but the conduct. If someone is repeatedly posting<br>
the same or slightly reworded messages, that should be addressed regardless<br>
of how those messages were written.<br>
<br>
At the same time, I believe we should be careful not to assume coordination<br>
or automation without clear evidence. If there are concerns, it is only<br>
fair that the people involved have an opportunity to respond before<br>
conclusions are reached.<br>
<br>
Going forward, I think it would help to have clearer guidance on acceptable<br>
posting behaviour. That would make moderation more transparent and<br>
consistent, while still allowing people to use new tools responsibly.<br>
<br>
The goal should be to keep the mailing list useful and focused on technical<br>
discussions, without discouraging genuine participation simply because<br>
someone used AI to organise or improve their thoughts.<br>
<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
Fundiswa Nadia Maseko<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260724/cf1d47b2/attachment-0001.html">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260724/cf1d47b2/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:52:23 -0400<br>
From: "Mike Burns" <mike@iptrading.com><br>
To: "'Fundiswa Nadia Maseko'" <fundiswanadia2@gmail.com>,<br>
<rpd@afrinic.net><br>
Cc: pdwg-chairs@afrinic.net<br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed<br>
behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02<br>
Message-ID: <03d501dd1b6b$46002c50$d20084f0$@iptrading.com><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
<br>
How come you guys never include the previous post in your replies?<br>
<br>
It seems fairly consistent and is unhelpful in my view, especially with top-posting.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I think we may have reached a workable d?tente, with LLMs reducing posting volume and the list not disregarding the arguments they make.<br>
<br>
No side has the incentive to destroy the workability of the list.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
From: Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2@gmail.com> <br>
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2026 8:45 AM<br>
To: rpd@afrinic.net<br>
Cc: pdwg-chairs@afrinic.net<br>
Subject: Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear Ben,<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Thank you for your clarification.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I think there is an important distinction between using AI to help draft a message and using automation to flood a mailing list. The issue, in my view, is not AI itself, but the conduct. If someone is repeatedly posting the same or slightly reworded messages,
that should be addressed regardless of how those messages were written.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At the same time, I believe we should be careful not to assume coordination or automation without clear evidence. If there are concerns, it is only fair that the people involved have an opportunity to respond before conclusions are reached.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Going forward, I think it would help to have clearer guidance on acceptable posting behaviour. That would make moderation more transparent and consistent, while still allowing people to use new tools responsibly.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The goal should be to keep the mailing list useful and focused on technical discussions, without discouraging genuine participation simply because someone used AI to organise or improve their thoughts.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Fundiswa Nadia Maseko<br>
<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260724/f3eac90f/attachment.html">https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20260724/f3eac90f/attachment.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Subject: Digest Footer<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
RPD mailing list<br>
RPD@afrinic.net<br>
<a href="https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd">https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo/rpd</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
End of RPD Digest, Vol 222, Issue 197<br>
*************************************<br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>