Hello Fernando, Your statements are factually and materially incorrect about ICP-2 and in the Australian context of Corporate Governance.
ICP-2 requires a stable and autonomous legal entity and there are no circumstances where that legal entity has no board of directors, committee, officers and/or executive staff legally bound to duties of care, competence and diligence. As always, these matters are layered, nuanced and complex. There is no way to argue this as PDP vs Board when the two must work together constructively and effectively in that same "bottom up" process. 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 21:36, Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> wrote: > The point here is not that EC cannot exercise their fiduciary duty, but > how and when. If done in a different way that expected it may violate the > PDP. > Another important point is: EC is not above PDP, is beside it, otherwise > it voids ICP-2 that talks about bottom up process and in such process > members cannot be above community. Each part have their duties and > prerogatives in order develop policies and protect the organization. > > Best regards > Fernando > On 1/20/2026 3:31 AM, Terry Sweetser wrote: > > Hi Luke, > > Have to agree, the policy is actually sound and the optional extra proved > to be too expensive --- effectively the policy has been adopted wholly by > EC without any real conflict with the PDP. The flexibility of allowing the > EC to exercise duty of care and diligence on the matter is actually a great > outcome. > > 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 16:10, Luke Thompson <[email protected]> > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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, >>> >>> >>> <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] >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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]
