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,
<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 15:41, 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.
<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]
<mailto:sig-policy-leave%40lists.apnic.net>
