Dear APNIC Community Members
On Monday, 7 April, APNIC Members and the community gathered online to discuss two proposed amendments to the APNIC By-laws: 1. Extending the terms of Executive Council (EC) members from two to three years. 2. Introducing term limits of three terms for EC members. Please see a summary of the feedback received during the session below. The EC is keen to hear more from APNIC Members and the community and encourages you to share your feedback here on APNIC-Talk. The deadline to provide your feedback is 18 April 2025. After all the feedback is considered, and final wording is completed, the EC intends to put the proposed by-law reforms to a Member vote at APNIC 60 in September 2025. More information on the final proposals, including how to vote, will be published prior to APNIC 60. Feedback and questions on the proposals This is a sample of the feedback and questions received in the online community consultation session held on Monday, 7 April 2025 at 14:00 (UTC +10). The full recording and transcript is available at https://bylaws.apnic.net. Feedback summary There was general support for the proposals from those who provided feedback during the online consultation session. One community member noted that the community is already quite familiar with the current mechanism and that this proposal makes simple things even more complicated. The EC were also asked by a community member to provide their comments on the proposals. Kenny Huang, Roopinder Singh Perhar, and Achie Atienza spoke in favour of the proposals. 1. Question: Can EC members be re-elected after three terms? Secretariat answer: The proposal is presented as an absolute limit of three terms, meaning an EC member could not be re-elected after serving three terms. We encourage the community to provide feedback on this. 2. Question: How will the reforms apply to the current EC members? Secretariat answer: This has not been determined yet. How they will be implemented will be considered after receiving the community's feedback. We note that the change in term lengths will require a transitional period. We encourage you to provide your feedback on how the reforms might be applied to the current EC members. Community feedback: * The EC Members should move to three-year terms if they are re-elected, provided they haven't been in the seat for something close to nine-years. * If the candidate has been an EC member for 10 years (five terms), then they should not be allowed to renominate. If they have been on the EC for less time, they can be re-elected for three years, but we will need to decide how we count the number of terms, or if it's per year or per term. * One approach is to look at the existing amount of years that each EC member has currently served for and use that as a way to determine whether or not they stand for re-election, to align with nine years. 3. Question: LACNIC and RIPE NCC do not have term limits. Is there a reason for this different structure? Secretariat answer: The Secretariat advised that they were not aware of the reasons why LACNIC or RIPE NCC do not have term limits, or if it has previously been considered by their communities. Following the consultation session, it has been confirmed that to the best of our knowledge the LACNIC and RIPE NCC Members have not formally considered term limits for their respective board members. 4. Question: What is the consultation and reform process? Secretariat answer: The process will involve: 1. Community consultation on the high-level proposals, via feedback during this webinar and on the APNIC-Talk mailing list by 18 April 2025 2. EC review of feedback and development of final proposals 3. Information sessions on final proposals 4. Member vote Community feedback: I'd like to see separately to this a framework in place as to how we get new involvement in the community. I think there is a lot of appetite for there to be kind of a navigable structure. I've seen in the community several people commenting about getting lost within the kind of APNIC Framework and how to participate. 5. Question: What is the status of the suggested reform to introduce appointed independent directors? Secretariat answer: The EC discussed this suggestion from Jonathan Brewer and responded to him, which can be found on the EC correspondence and feedback page <https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/organization/structure/apnic-executive-co uncil/ec-roles-and-obligations/ec-correspondence-and-feedback> on the APNIC website. The EC advised that further consideration was needed, especially with regard to the potential impact on the EC's structure and processes if independent directors were introduced. The EC has committed to continuing to consider the proposal. Community feedback: * As a community member, we definitely think that the APNIC EC Board does need a bit of diversity. I know that everyone wants it to be diverse, but we are not seeing that much diversity. Kind regards Jeremy Jeremy Harrison General Counsel, APNIC e: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] p: +61 7 3858 3194 <https://www.apnic.net/> www.apnic.net
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
