Hey Terry, We have been through this before, but let me put this hear again
- EC exercise as the Board of Directors of the APNIC Pty Ltd and have the delegated fiduciary duty. - Yes, the EC has fiduciary duties. According to the APNIC Bylaws, they manages "the activities, functions and affairs of APNIC and the corporation" (Bylaws 30(b)). They establish budgets and determine expenditure ceilings (Bylaws 30(g)). So yes, they have ultimate responsibility for APNIC's financial health. - What has happened is violation of established governance framework. further in next step - If the EC can simply declare "we won't implement this due to XYZ reason or financial constraints," then: Why have a PDP at all? Why spend weeks/months on community consensus? Why not stop the process when secretariat submit their report? What's the point of the "refer back" mechanism in Step 5? - If the EC had genuine concerns about cost/feasibility, the PDP explicitly provides the mechanism. EC could have formally state: "We estimate this will cost $X and require Y staff time, which we cannot accommodate as per current financial standing" so Dear Community, please discuss whether to proceed, modify, or withdraw. This is transparent decision-making - It sets a dangerous precedent, If the EC can selectively implement parts of policies which reached consensus at OPM and then at member meeting based on "practical considerations" or "perceived fiduciary duty" then any policy can be rejected after consensus and most importantly EC becomes the policy-making body, which they certainly are not and community along with member consensus becomes meaningless Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 at 16:22, Terry Sweetser <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Aftab, > > Alas, it's not as simple as that. The EC, as the Board of Directors, has > a fiduciary duty over and above the PDP, and they have ultimate > responsibility for the financial resources of APNIC. So, yes, there is > now policy, but the Secretariat will not implement it due to the practical > considerations around resources needed but not available. This will feed > into the fees and finances debate this year, I have no doubt. > > > <https://about.me/terry.sweetser?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb> > Terry Sweetser > about.me/terry.sweetser > <https://about.me/terry.sweetser?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=gmail_api&utm_content=thumb> > > > On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 at 15:08, Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dear Secretariat, >> or if anyone from EC would like to comment on this, >> >> As per my understanding of the PDP, the EC's Role According to Step 5 >> clearly states the EC has three options only after the consensus has >> reached at the OPM and then at AMM/AGM: >> >> - Endorse the proposal for implementation >> - Do not endorse the proposal and refer back to the Policy SIG for >> further discussion with clearly stated reasons >> - Do not endorse the proposal and refer the endorsement to a formal vote >> of adoption by APNIC members >> >> It can't be endorsed by EC and then ask secretariat to implement some >> parts of it. It's a binary function and since this policy has been endorsed >> by the EC as per the meeting minutes then it has to be implemented as >> written. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Aftab A. Siddiqui >> >> >> On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 at 13:13, Dave Phelan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear Colleagues >>> >>> The APNIC Executive Council endorsed the following proposals, at its >>> meeting on 2-4 December 2025. >>> >>> prop-162: WHOIS Privacy ( >>> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-162/) >>> prop-166: Revocation of Persistently Non-functional RPKI Certification >>> Authorities (https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-166/) >>> prop-167: Published Statistics on Directory Service Usage ( >>> https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/proposals/prop-167) >>> >>> prop-167 contained the following notes from the EC (full text available >>> in the EC Minutes ( >>> https://www.apnic.net/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/APNIC-EC-Meeting-Minutes-December-2025-Complete-Public.pdf >>> ): >>> >>> "..with respect to publishing real-time or near-real-time statistics >>> about its directory services usage as set out in the proposal text. Noting >>> that the text of Prop-167-v002 requests APNIC "Include a feature within the >>> MyAPNIC portal allowing resource holders to view how many times their >>> allocated resources (such as IP addresses or ASNs) have been queried in >>> WHOIS and RDAP, broken down by query type and source ASN if possible...”, >>> the Executive Council notes that the cost, resourcing, and potential >>> privacy concerns outweigh the immediate benefit of such functionality and >>> as such does not consider it feasible at this time. " >>> >>> Next steps >>> >>> ---------- >>> >>> The Secretariat will begin the implementation process and inform the >>> community as soon as it is completed. >>> >>> Regards >>> Dave Phelan >>> APNIC Secretariat >>> _______________________________________________ >>> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > >
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
