Hey all,
I'm glad that prop-167 has been mostly endorsed. Hopefully I don't
misunderstand.
I think timing and handling of policy-related actions has been a bit choppy
and deserves review, as several have pointed at now. Hopefully that improves.
The part about the metadata and potential privacy concerns, I think stats
must be visible - to that end it seems nearly all of the proposal text has
been endorsed, except the final point about having it also feed into
MyAPNIC(?), so this is approved anyway except the web integration part?
That seems reasonable given the breadth of what was not refuted, as the
same data is to be made available "another way" - at least to my perception
- via JSON/CSV/etc.
It can easily be argued the EC has relied on the proposal v2 wording of the
final (and only rejected) point's wording "if possible", and leveraged
their caution against that - because that proposal text did not make it
definitive, unlike the approved policy text.
They quoted the final point only as refused. The rest was fully endorsed.
So given what Terry has outlined, which makes sense in edge cases to
protect against self damage/destruction via over-commitment, and based on
my above understanding, I think prop-167's outcome is OK in balance.
Many thanks,
Luke Thompson, CTO
The Network Crew P/L
E: [email protected]
https://tnc.works
On 20 January 2026 4:59:20 pm Terry Sweetser <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Aftab,
We would agree fully if this was purely a debate on policy implementation.
And I feel the EC also feels the policy is good and helps with
transparency: however policy does not get a blank cheque.
And either way, I feel this is not an impasse as Resolution 2025-32
endorses and accepts the policy but highlights the risk and cost of
implementing the real time features.
I do now wonder what happened with the feasibility step of the policy
process and why this matter was not flagged then?
Regards,
Terry Sweetser
about.me/terry.sweetser
On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 at 15:41, Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
Terry Sweetser
about.me/terry.sweetser
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]
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
