Hi Aftab,
Thank you for the further comments. The Working Group's responses are below. *1. Nomination period (Section 3.4.2)* The length of the nomination window is unchanged. The current Guidelines open nominations five weeks before the conference and close them four weeks after the initial call, which means nominations close one week before the conference — a four-week window. The draft opens six weeks before and closes two weeks before, which is also a four-week window. The change is therefore not a shortening of the period available to nominees. It shifts the same four weeks one week earlier, and expresses both the opening and closing points relative to the conference, rather than expressing one relative to the conference and the other relative to the initial call. The practical effect of closing two weeks before the conference rather than one is to give the Secretariat additional time before nominations are published. The draft asks the Secretariat to confirm that a nominee is eligible, in addition to willing and able, and that verification needs to be completed before the list of nominations goes onto the conference website. *2. Voting eligibility (Section 3.4.3)* On the underlying premise, the Working Group would gently suggest that APNIC Members are not a separate constituency from the APNIC community. Members are part of that community by default. In practice the two overlap substantially rather than sitting apart: a great many participants are active in the SIGs as individuals and are also associated with a Member organization as resource holders. You would be an example of exactly that overlap yourself. Seen that way, extending a vote to Members is not importing an external corporate constituency into a community forum. It enfranchised part of the same community. The draft also does not give Members an exclusive franchise. Individual in-person attendees are eligible to vote in their own right, with no requirement of APNIC membership at all. The electorate combines both, so the individual participation channel has been supplemented rather than replaced. On the history, the Working Group would respectfully suggest the position is different from the one described. Member voting was not introduced during the COVID period. Version 002 of the Guidelines, published in April 2021, based voting eligibility purely on individual participation, with no Member entitlement at all. The Member entitlement first appears in version 003, published in April 2023, which records that it implements changes to the election process as agreed at APNIC 55 in February 2023. Those changes originate in a community proposal, "Update election procedures in the SIG Guidelines", put forward by Bertrand Cherrier and Joy Chan, whose stated objective was to ensure the integrity of APNIC SIG elections: https://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/drafts/SIG%20elections%20changes%20proposal-APNIC55.txt On the in-person criterion specifically, the direction of travel was also the reverse of what the COVID framing would suggest. The proposal notes that prior to online elections all SIG voting was in person at a conference, so voter identities could be confirmed. Remote voting was the pandemic-era accommodation; the APNIC 55 changes reintroduced an in-person check-in requirement precisely to restore that verification. The proposal also expressly identified, among its disadvantages, that online-only conference participants who are not Members would become ineligible to vote. That trade-off was visible to the community when the changes were agreed. The Working Group has not altered any of this. Section 3.4.3 in the draft reproduces the version 003 text. Thank you again for the detailed engagement. Regards, Gaurav Kansal on behalf of the SIG Guidelines Review Working Group On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 at 08:45, Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> wrote: > Sharing more concerns. > > <quote> > 3.4.2 Nomination period > Nominations will open six (6) weeks before, and close two (2) weeks > before, the APNIC conference. A reminder may be sent seven (7) days before > the nominations close date. > All nominations will be listed on the APNIC conference website after the > APNIC Secretariat confirms the nominee is eligible, willing, and able to > fulfil the role and obligations set out in this document. > </quote> > > What was the rationale behind changing the nomination period? The current > guideline says "open five (5) weeks before the APNIC conference and close > four (4) weeks after the initial call". > > <quote> > 3.4.3 Voting eligibility > Each APNIC Member is entitled to cast one vote during the times noted in > the SIG election timetable. Online voting entitlements for Member > organizations are only available to those individuals who are: > - Corporate Contacts, or > - Authorized contacts with voting rights given by the Corporate Contact. > > In-person attendees at APNIC conferences are also eligible to vote in SIG > elections. A conference attendee must meet the following criteria to vote: > 1. Registered and attending the current conference in person. The attendee > must be checked-in at the registration desk at any time from the start of > the conference until 10.00am (conference local time) on the final day of > the conference. > 2. Registered and attended (in-person or online) at least one of the > immediate past eight (8) APRICOT or APNIC standalone conferences (not > including the current conference). Eligible registered attendees will vote > online in the SIG elections and will be entitled to one vote each. > Verification of an individual’s entitlement to vote against official > records will be used where necessary. There is no proxy voting at SIG > elections. APNIC staff and other RIR staff are ineligible to vote. > </quote> > > Again the fundamental issue is that SIG Chair/co-chairs are supposed to be > community representatives/facilitators, not representatives of APNIC > Members as corporate entities. If SIGs are open community forums, why does > an APNIC Member organisation have a vote because it is a Member? This > begins to blur the distinction between: > > APNIC corporate membership governance > and > APNIC community/SIG participation. > > The definition of APNIC Community as defined by APNIC [ > https://www.apnic.net/community/] : The APNIC community is open to anyone > with an interest in Internet number resources in the Asia Pacific Region. > > Secondly, this is very important to understand, the earlier voting > eligibility provision was based on individual community participation, > changes made during the COVID period were understandably necessary to > accommodate exceptional circumstances but we are out of those circumstances > now. Another point to remember, the election used to happen during APRICOT > Events rather at the standalone conference, this was also codified during > COVID, there are some very strong and necessary historical reason for doing > that and secretariat should know this better. > > Regards, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 at 14:51, 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]
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
