Dear Christopher, Thank you for your detailed feedback and for your continued engagement with the Policy SIG.
The chairs discussed the matter collectively. Our decision was based primarily on the Secretariat’s advice regarding the limited agenda time available for APNIC 62 and the practical need to work within the confirmed session schedule. It was not intended as a judgement on the importance or merit of any particular proposal. Regarding Prop-165, its status was subsequently clarified with the authors, who confirmed their intention to refine and continue the proposal based on community feedback. We appreciate the points you have raised and encourage continued discussion through the mailing list and the PDP. Best Regards, ................................... Bikram, Shaila and Ching-Heng, ________________________________ From: Christopher Hawker <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 7:32 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [sig-policy] Re: Copyright and Acceptable Use Terms for APNIC Directory Services Hello Bikram, Shaila and Ching-Heng, The "APNIC Policy Development Process" (document reference APNIC-111 version 003) under 3.1 "Policy proposal" reads as follows: The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion at the forthcoming OPM if: - The proposal is out of scope for the Policy SIG. - The proposal is insufficiently developed to be the basis for a useful discussion. - The agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority. Could I please ask, how the Chairs have determined that the proposals currently on the table for discussion are of a "greater priority" than Jonathan's proposal? For the record, the "first in best dressed" methodology does not constitute "greater priority". Further, it is not within the Chairs' remit to decide what proposals are accepted based on the outcome of existing proposals when they do not conflict. Prop-162 is based on WHOIS Privacy, the proposal submitted (based on the title) is regarding Acceptable Use Terms for APNIC Directory Services. Further, I note that Prop-165 was withdrawn at APNIC 61 by the authors (referencing the email from Bikram sent on 16 February 2026, see [../DL5JZ2HMNYCXSSUU7FQ4VJJ3V5LKKUVI/]https://orbit.apnic.net/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/thread/DL5JZ2HMNYCXSSUU7FQ4VJJ3V5LKKUVI/), yet the same proposal number (prop-165) version 3 was published for discussion yesterday. On what basis was the decision made to reinstate a proposal that was withdrawn, instead of presented as a new proposal? I am putting forward to the Chairs and the community, that Prop-165 titled "Provision of IPv4 Address Space to IPv6-only Networks for Transitional Purpose" be withdrawn by the Chairs or delayed for presentation and discussion at APNIC 63, and the proposal submitted by Jonathan Brewer titled "Copyright and Acceptable Use Terms for APNIC Directory Services" be tabled for discussion at APNIC 62. There are some concerns with this proposal and reasons for the above: 1. Acknowledging the potential for author bias, there is a reasonable expectation that Prop-168 that I have submitted, will deplete the available address pool within 6 months. Point 1 of the "Sunset Provision" within the Proposed Policy Solution of Prop-165 states that the Secretariat can trigger this "sunset provision" and cease delegations under the policy (if implemented). This, in and of itself, would render Prop-165 redundant. 2. Point 2 of the "Sunset Provision" states that the Secretariat can cease delegations under this policy (if implemented) based on a threshold determined by the community. Given that this would require detailed discussion, and it is highly unlikely that a threshold will be agreed to by a reasonable number of community members within the next 3 weeks (allowing for one week for a revised version to be published to the mailing list for discussion prior to the OPM), this means that a consensus call cannot be made on this proposal. This would (in my opinion) be better suited for an extended discussion to ensure a reasonable number of members provide feedback prior to a consensus on the threshold being decided, and an updated version submitted. 3. Point 3, also of the Sunset Provision, reads "The APNIC Executive Council determines that continued operation of this policy would materially threaten equitable access to remaining IPv4 resources". The Executive Council should not be making decisions on the application of policy in relation to the delegation of Internet Number Resources, unless said delegations would materially harm APNIC's ongoing operations, or are out of scope and on the remote chance have managed to make its way through the PDP to the EC for endorsement. This can be considered a conflict with the bottom-up approach of the Policy Development Process as operational changes to policy (such as this) are required to be run through the PDP, and "equitable access" to IPv4 resources does not constitute "material harm" to APNIC. 4. On an operational level, this proposal does not fundamentally add or remove any existing mechanisms or functions that current policy does not already allow for. I believe it would be safe to say that if (under current policy) a member requested a /24 with the justification that they are multihoming between two upstreams and require the space for transitional services the delegation would be granted. This recommendation is not to minimise the importance of the author's proposal in any way or to undervalue the time they have invested in its drafting, its more so to show that greater time is required to ensure that this proposal is shaped in a way that affords it the best chance of reaching consensus, and that as a result other proposals should be considered a "greater priority". Having said all of the above, the absence of sufficient time does not prevent the Chairs from accepting a proposal for discussion at a future event. It is well within the Chair's capacity to accept a proposal for discussion, and make a decision to delay the discussion and consensus call for discussion at a future OPM. Can the Chairs please advise why the decision to not accept the proposal for discussion on the mailing list was made, when it meets all conditions for acceptance, and the Chairs "acknowledge the issue raised and support the work in principle"? I look forward to a prompt reply from the Chairs, given that we are only 29 days out from the OPM. Regards, Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
