Hi Philip,
Thank you for your comments, and for sharing the history. It is very useful for the Working Group to hear this from someone who was there at the start. *1. SIGs and the role of the EC* The Working Group agrees with you about the original intent. SIGs are community meetings. The community runs them. APNIC provides administrative support only. This review was not meant to change that, and the Working Group would not support a change that did. You wrote that the new Guidelines would let the EC or the Secretariat make changes whenever they wish. The Working Group does not read the draft that way. Section 8 has not changed in substance. It says that any change to these Guidelines needs consensus from all SIGs. The steps are: - the proposal goes to the mailing lists of all SIGs, at least four weeks before a joint SIG Forum; - one Chair from each SIG forms a panel and decides if there is consensus; - the outcome goes to the AGM/AMM; - only if the AGM/AMM agrees does the Secretariat make the change. So neither the EC nor the Secretariat can change the Guidelines on their own. On Section 3.6 (removing a Chair or Co-Chair), the Working Group has replied to Aftab in more detail on this list. In short, this review did not give the EC this power. In v001 and v002, removal was automatic and no one was named as the decision maker. The EC first appeared in v003. The current version keeps that same text. The draft copies it without change. What the Working Group did add to Section 3.6 is protection for the Chair or Co-Chair: - written notice of the reasons for removal; - 90 days to reply before any decision is made; - written reasons for the decision; - the SIG community is told the outcome. None of this existed before. The aim was to put limits on a power that was already there, not to create a new one. *2. The words "APNIC Conference"* APNIC treats both of its yearly conferences as APNIC Conferences. Its own website says the first APNIC Conference each year is held as a conference track of APRICOT, and the second is a standalone conference: https://www.apnic.net/events/conferences/ The APNIC conference attendee guide says the same thing. It says APNIC conferences are held twice a year. The first is co-organized with APNOG as part of APRICOT. The second is standalone. Each one also gets its own meeting number. And the APRICOT 2027 website lists APNIC 63, including the APNIC AGM, as one part of that Summit. So the Working Group's view is that the draft follows APNIC's own practice. Calling the APRICOT-hosted meeting an APNIC Conference does not mean APRICOT itself is one. If the community would still like this term defined clearly in Section 1, the Working Group is happy to take that forward. *3. What if a SIG does not meet at a Conference?* This is a good point, and the draft does deal with it. Section 2.3 says that when Chairs and Co-Chairs attend an APNIC Conference, and a SIG Forum is held for their SIG, they are expected to attend that Forum. Section 2.3.2 says the same for Co-Chairs. So the duty only applies if a Forum actually takes place. You are right that a SIG does not have to meet at every Conference. This "if a Forum is held" wording is not new, but the draft makes it clearer. The current text just says "a forum", and for Co-Chairs it says "if SIG forums or OPM are held". The draft now uses the term "SIG Forum", which is defined in Section 1.7 as the meetings of a SIG held at APNIC Conferences. The Policy SIG's OPM is included in that definition. *4. APNIC membership and voting* The Working Group has given a fuller answer to Aftab on this list, so only a short version here. The Member vote was not added by this review, and it does not come from the COVID period. It first appeared in v003, published in April 2023. That version implemented election changes agreed by the community at APNIC 55 in February 2023. Those changes came from a proposal by Bertrand Cherrier and Joy Chan. Its stated aim was to protect the integrity of SIG elections: https://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/drafts/SIG%20elections%20changes%20proposal-APNIC55.txt Section 3.4.3 of the draft copies that text. It is also worth saying that Members are not the only voters. Individual in-person attendees can vote in their own right. They do not need to be APNIC Members. The Working Group will take all these points to the Joint SIGs session at APNIC 62, where the community can discuss them directly. It would be good to have you there, in person or online. Regards, Gaurav Kansal on behalf of the SIG Guidelines Review Working Group On Wed, 12 Aug 2026 at 09:33, Philip Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for sharing the proposed new guidelines. > > I'd like to echo Aftab's concerns 100%. > > I was one of the community instigators proposing an equivalent to the > RIPE Working Groups for our region back at the start of this century. Of > course, we do not have an equivalent of RIPE here (the closest I suppose > was the long gone APNG - Asia Pacific Networking Group), so the best fit > equivalent was to create Working Groups with administrative support of > APNIC. Our intention very clearly was NOT to create APNIC > sub-committees, but fora for like minded folks to discuss, coming up > with recommendations, best practice, you name it. It was the previous > APNIC DG who requested they be called Special Interest Groups, rather > than Working Groups as we wanted (which I felt neutralised the intent > that we really wanted to do *work* as the RIPE Working Groups do). > > I have serious concerns about giving the APNIC EC any authority to > remove SIG Chairs, or indeed any authority over the SIGs. SIGs are > community gatherings, organised by the community for the community to > discuss topics as per the SIG's area of interest. APNIC provides > administrative support. The SIGs are not convened or created or driven > by APNIC, and the intention has always been that neither the EC nor the > Secretariat have any authority to make changes at their leisure or > pleasure, as the updated guidelines are proposing. > > The wording around "APNIC Conference" needs to be fixed. APNIC 62 > upcoming is, of course an APNIC Conference, but APNIC's meeting held as > part of APRICOT is not an "APNIC Conference". APNIC 63 next year in Hong > Kong is a fully integral part of the APRICOT 2027 Summit which is > organised by APNOG. Also what if the "APNIC Conference" happens, but the > SIG does not meet for that specific event? There is no requirement that > the SIG *must* meet every 6 months, is there? I recommend fixing the > wording; perhaps "SIG Meeting" would be better as it is then very clear > that the Chair or Co-Chair has to attend (in person or online) a > proportion of the SIG Meetings during their tenure of the role. > > Finally, I'm baffled why "APNIC Member" has any relevance for who can or > cannot vote for SIG Chairs. The regular participants of the SIG nominate > and vote for their Chairs - nothing to do with APNIC membership. Over > the years, SIG Chairs have been voted for during the SIG Meeting held > during the APRICOT Summit, as that guarantees the largest attendance of > regular SIG participants, giving the best opportunity for broadest > community input into their specific SIG's content and direction. > > philip > -- > _______________________________________________ > 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]
