Hi Chris, Thanks again for your detailed feedback.
This was not an easy decision. For APNIC 62, we received a good number of policy proposals from the community. After collective discussion, we had to decline several submissions for this OPM. In doing so we applied Section 3.1 of APNIC-111, which allows this where “the agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority.” In setting those priorities, we considered the maturity and continuity of discussions already progressing through the PDP, as well as the community discussion that had already taken place. Prop-165 has already been through multiple versions, mailing-list discussion and an OPM discussion. As Chairs, we remain neutral on the merits and outcome of individual proposals. Our role is to facilitate discussion in a bottom-up and inclusive manner and consider community views in a balanced way. We understand that priorities may be different for different members of the community. We acknowledge your view that Jonathan’s proposal would be valuable to discuss at APNIC 62. However, with a limited agenda and a larger than usual number of proposals submitted for consideration, the Chairs were required to make prioritisation decisions in accordance with APNIC-111. While not all proposals can be accommodated at every OPM, we encourage continued discussion on the mailing list so that proposals can continue to develop and be considered in future meetings. Regards, Bikram, Shaila, and Ching-Heng APNIC Policy SIG Chairs On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 4:34 PM Christopher Hawker <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Bikram, > > Thank you for your reply. > > I appreciate that the Chairs have a limited schedule to work with based on > the Conference program. Having said this, it does not address how the > Chairs determined that the proposals currently being discussed were > considered a "greater priority". The PDP is very clear in the sense that it > says "The Chair may decide that a proposal is not suitable for discussion > at the forthcoming OPM if ... the agenda has already been filled by topics > of greater priority". There is no provision for proposals to be rejected > from the PDP based on conference scheduling alone, and it does not prevent > the Chairs from accepting proposals for mailing list discussion, and then > presentation/consensus at a future OPM. > > Noting that it was a collective decision by the Chairs based primarily on > advice from the Secretariat regarding scheduling, if time was not of a > concern, how many proposals would have been accepted by the Chairs for > discussion? > > In my opinion (and what is also consistent with the PDP as it is currently > written), what should be taking place is that any proposals submitted (at > any time of the year) which are within scope and are sufficiently developed > to be the basis for a useful discussion are published to the mailing list. > At a suitable time before the next OPM the Chairs and the community make a > decision as to what proposals should be progressing for in-person > discussion and what will remain on the mailing list. > > Regards, > Christopher Hawker > _______________________________________________ > SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] -- Regards, Shaila Sharmin +8801811447396
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
