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]>
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:sig-policy-leave%40lists.apnic.net>
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy -https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
