Hi Aftab,
Thank you for taking the time to go through the draft in detail. The Working Group's responses to your three points are below. *1. "APNIC Conference" and APRICOT* The Working Group understands the distinction being drawn, but respectfully does not think the draft is wrong on this point. An APNIC Conference held in conjunction with APRICOT remains an APNIC Conference in its own right. Co-location does not merge the two events or subsume one into the other. APNIC classifies and identifies each of its conferences as a distinct meeting, assigning it its own sequential meeting number, whether it is held standalone or alongside APRICOT. On that basis, referring to such a meeting as an APNIC Conference is consistent with APNIC's own naming and identification practice, and the Working Group does not read the draft as treating APRICOT itself as an APNIC Conference. So while the Working Group's view is that the current usage is correct, if the community would like the term expressly defined, or would prefer the two-part formulation used consistently throughout, that is something the Working Group can take forward. *2. Physical and online participation in Section 3.6* On the substance, the draft may already say what you are asking for. Section 3.6 refers only to a Chair or Co-Chair who "does not attend" — there is no requirement anywhere in that clause that attendance be in person. As drafted, remote attendance would count. It may also help to note that this provision is long-standing rather than new. It has been in the Guidelines in substantially this form since v001 in 2016, and as far as the Working Group is aware it has never been used to remove a Chair or Co-Chair. On the related point about the test being participation and facilitation rather than the ability to travel, that is a reasonable principle and one worth discussing in Mumbai. *3. EC authority to remove a Chair or Co-Chair* This is the most important of your points, and the Working Group wants to be precise about what has and has not been proposed, because there may be a misunderstanding about the origin of this provision. The EC's role in removal is not something introduced by this review. Tracing the clause through the published versions: - v001 (2016) and v002: removal was automatic, with no actor named — the text simply said the Chair or Co-Chair "will be removed". - v003: the wording changed to "the APNIC EC will have discretion to remove", and "will be removed by the APNIC EC". This is where the EC first appears in this provision. - The current version carries that same language. - The draft (v005) reproduces that language unchanged. The only new material the Working Group has added to Section 3.6 is the procedural protection — written notice of the grounds, a 90-day period to respond before any decision, written reasons for the decision, and notification of the outcome to the SIG community. None of these existed before. The Working Group's intent here was therefore the opposite of expanding the EC's role. It was to constrain an existing power by attaching due process to it, where previously there was none. The redline version may make this easier to see: https://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/drafts/apnic-128-v005-draft.redline.html <https://mail.mniccloud.in/zm/reUrlCheck.do?url=https%3A%2F%2Fftp.apnic.net%2Fapnic%2Fdrafts%2Fapnic-128-v005-draft.redline.html&uvd=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> The Working Group also wants to be clear that this does not answer the question you actually asked. Whether there is a By-laws basis for the EC to hold that power at all is a separate and legitimate question, and one the Working Group is not in a position to determine. It is a matter for the EC and the Secretariat. *On next steps* The draft has been published for community review ahead of the consensus call at the Joint SIGs session at APNIC 62. Rather than revise the text while it is out for comment, the Working Group's approach is to bring these points to the session, so the community can consider them directly and give a clear direction. Where there is community support for changes, they can be incorporated. Your participation in that session, whether in person or online, would be very welcome. Thank you again for the detailed review — it is genuinely useful. Regards, Gaurav Kansal on behalf of the SIG Guidelines Review Working Group On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 at 10:21, Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Gaurav, thanks for sharing the guidelines. > > <Quote> > 3.6 Removing a Chair or Co-Chair > If a SIG Chair or Co-Chair does not attend one in every two APNIC > Conferences and does not attend the SIG Forum held at the APNIC Conference, > the APNIC EC will have discretion to remove the Chair or Co-Chair from > their role. The process of electing a replacement will then begin. > > If SIG members do not think that the Chair or Co-Chair is sufficiently > performing their duties (as described in this document or the relevant SIG > Charter), they can express their concerns on the mailing list or in the SIG > Forum. If there is consensus that the Chair or Co-Chair is not sufficiently > performing their responsibilities, the Chair or Co-Chair will be removed by > the APNIC EC. The process of electing a replacement will then begin. > > Before removing a Chair or Co-Chair under this section, the APNIC EC will: > (a) give the Chair or Co-Chair written notice of the grounds for removal; > (b) provide a period of 90 days from the date of the notice for the Chair > or Co-Chair to respond before a decision is made; > (c) provide written reasons for its decision; and > (d) inform the SIG community of the outcome. > > If an individual holds more than one elected position and does not resign > in accordance with section 3.4.1 within 30 days of their election, the > APNIC EC has discretion to remove the individual from their elected > positions/s (excluding the position for which they were most recently > elected). > > </Quote> > ------ > > First, references throughout the document to an “APNIC Conference” need to > be framed more carefully. APRICOT is not an APNIC Conference. APNIC > meetings and activities may be held in conjunction with APRICOT, but that > does not make APRICOT itself an APNIC Conference. The terminology should > therefore distinguish between an APNIC Conference/meeting and an APRICOT > conference at which relevant APNIC meetings or SIG activities are held, > rather than inadvertently treating APRICOT as an APNIC Conference. > > Second, section 3.6 refers to a Chair or Co-Chair not attending “at least > one APNIC Conference per year”, but does not appear to distinguish between > physical and online participation. This is important. If a Chair or > Co-Chair is unable to travel to a particular meeting but actively > participates in the SIG and attends the meeting remotely, why should that > constitute non-performance or potentially contribute to their removal? If > attendance is to be included as an expectation at all, the document should > explicitly recognise remote participation. The relevant test should be > whether the elected Chair or Co-Chair continues to participate in and > facilitate the work of the SIG, not whether they are physically able to > travel to a conference. > > Now the bigger issue, I have a fundamental concern with assigning the EC > authority to remove an elected SIG Chair or Co-Chair. > > We should first be clear about the nature of SIGs within the APNIC > community. SIGs are intentionally lightweight, community-driven forums > established to facilitate discussion, exchange views and, where relevant, > contribute to the bottom-up policy development process (ref policy and > routing security). They are not formal organisational units or > sub-committees of APNIC operating under the direction of the EC. > > Similarly, SIG Chairs and Co-Chairs are community-elected facilitators. > They do not exercise corporate authority delegated to them by the EC, nor > should they be regarded as officeholders accountable to the EC in the same > manner as an employee or an appointed committee member and because of that > reason, I question the governance basis (or legal basis) for giving the EC > the authority to remove a community-elected SIG representative unless the > issue is related to Code of Conduct which every attendee has to abide by. > > The APNIC By-laws define the powers delegated to the EC and expressly > establish removal powers where these are intended. I am not aware of an > equivalent provision giving the EC authority to remove an elected SIG Chair > or Co-Chair. In my view, the EC therefore should not have the authority > under the SIG Guidelines to remove a Chair or Co-Chair elected by the > community. If there is a basis in By-law basis for such authority, it > should be clearly identified. Otherwise, removal of an elected SIG > representative should remain a decision of the community that elected them. > > > Regards, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > On Sat, 8 Aug 2026 at 00:57, Gaurav Kansal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear Friends, >> >> On behalf of the SIG Guidelines Review Working Group, I'm pleased to >> share that the revised draft of the SIG Guidelines is now ready for >> community review. >> >> The Working Group has worked through the Guidelines broadly covering >> Chair and Co-Chair responsibilities, the SIG formation and dissolution >> process, term limits, SIG charters, and a few other areas. >> >> To help you review the proposed changes, we've prepared the following >> documents: >> >> 1. *Revised draft of SIG Guidelines* – the full proposed text of the >> revised Guidelines: >> https://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/drafts/apnic-128-v005-draft.txt >> 2. *HTML diff view* – a side-by-side comparison highlighting all the >> changes between the current Guidelines and the draft version: >> https://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/drafts/apnic-128-v005-draft.diff.html >> 3. *Redline version* – showing additions and deletions directly >> within the draft text for review: >> https://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/drafts/apnic-128-v005-draft.redline.html >> >> >> *How to provide feedback:* >> >> Please reply to this thread on the mailing list with your comments, >> questions, or concerns. All feedback is welcome — support, objections, and >> suggested edits alike. You're welcome to share feedback any time up to the >> Joint SIGs session at APNIC 62 in Mumbai, where the consensus call will >> take place. >> >> If you have any questions or would prefer to discuss anything off-list, >> please feel free to reach out to me directly at [email protected]. >> >> We look forward to your feedback, and to seeing many of you at the Joint >> SIGs session in Mumbai. >> >> Best regards, >> Gaurav Kansal >> on behalf of the SIG Guidelines Review Working Group >> _______________________________________________ >> 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]
