<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'>How come you guys never include the previous post in your replies?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>It seems fairly consistent and is unhelpful in my view, especially with top-posting.<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 think we may have reached a workable détente, with LLMs reducing posting volume and the list not disregarding the arguments they make.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>No side has the incentive to destroy the workability of the list.<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'> Fundiswa Nadia Maseko <fundiswanadia2@gmail.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 24, 2026 8:45 AM<br><b>To:</b> rpd@afrinic.net<br><b>Cc:</b> pdwg-chairs@afrinic.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [rpd] PDWG Co-Chairs communication regarding observed behavioron AFPUB-2026-ASN-001-DRAFT02<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear Ben,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you for your clarification.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Kind regards,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Fundiswa Nadia Maseko<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>