Hi Jon,
Thank you for reading the draft so closely. Your comments on Section 2.3.1 are very helpful. *1. The misplaced bullet points* You are right. The last two bullets in that second list — "Liaise with speakers as necessary" and "Coordinate with APNIC Secretariat to publish the SIG Forum agenda" — are duties. They are not reasons to reject a proposal. They should not be on that list. Thank you for catching this. It will be corrected. *2. Alignment with APNIC-111* On this point, the Working Group reads the position differently, and would like to explain why. The three reasons for rejecting a proposal in Section 2.3.1 are taken from APNIC-111 itself. APNIC-111 lists these same three reasons: - 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. https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/policy-development/development-process/ So Section 2.3.1 is not different from APNIC-111 on this. It repeats what APNIC-111 says. Your suggested wording removes two of these three reasons, which would move the Guidelines away from APNIC-111 rather than closer to it. *3. The deadline as a reason to reject* Your suggested text would let the Chair reject a proposal if it was not received before the deadline. The Working Group looked at this carefully, and thought it would create a conflict with APNIC-111. APNIC-111 says that if the four-week deadline is not met, proposals may still be submitted and presented for discussion at the OPM. What cannot happen is a decision on that proposal. The author must then resubmit it in time for the next OPM if they wish to continue. So under APNIC-111 a late proposal is still discussed. If the Guidelines allowed the Chair to reject it, the two documents would disagree. That said, your underlying point is fair. The Guidelines do not mention the APNIC-111 deadline anywhere. A better way to deal with this may be to add a reference to APNIC-111 for policy proposals, rather than to add a new reason for rejection. The Working Group will put that option to the community. *4. Structure of the list* Your version removes the headings "Before an APNIC Conference" and "At APNIC Conference". The Working Group would prefer to keep them. They tell the reader when each duty applies, which is useful. The misplaced bullets can be fixed without removing the headings. *5. How often APNIC Conferences are held* One small correction. APNIC Conferences are held twice a year, not once. APNIC's 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. SIG Forums are held at these conferences, so both happen twice a year. The Working Group has replied to Aftab and Philip on this list about the wording "APNIC Conference" more generally. *Next steps* The draft is open for community review before the consensus call at the Joint SIGs session at APNIC 62. The Working Group does not want to change the text while it is out for comment. All of the above will be taken to that session so the community can decide. Thank you again — the drafting errors you found are real, and would have gone unnoticed otherwise. Regards, Gaurav Kansal on behalf of the SIG Guidelines Review Working Group On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 at 09:42, Jonathan Brewer <jon@tō.nz> wrote: > Hi Gaurav, > > Section 2.3.1 has formatting problems in both version 004 as published on > the website and the proposed version 005. > > Here is what's in 005: > > 2.3.1 Chair responsibilities > In addition to the roles described in Section 2.3 above, the responsibilities > of the Chair are listed below. > Before an APNIC Conference > - Delegate tasks to Co-Chairs as necessary > - Monitor mailing list discussions > - Call for presentations on the appropriate mailing list > - Read or review submitted proposals or presentations > - Accept or reject proposals or presentations for discussion at the > forthcoming SIG Forum (and suggest an alternative forum if the topic is not > within SIG Charter). > > The Chair may decide that a proposal or presentation is not suitable for > discussion at the forthcoming SIG Forum if: > - The proposal or presentation is out of scope for the SIG charter > - The proposal or presentation is insufficiently developed to be the basis > for a useful discussion > - The agenda has already been filled by topics of greater priority > - Liaise with speakers as necessary > - Coordinate with APNIC Secretariat to publish the SIG Forum agenda. > > > Note above the final two bullet points in the second set do not belong > where they're at. > > That said I don't believe the SIG Guidelines as proposed are correctly > aligned with APNIC-111, the APNIC Policy Development Process. APNIC-111 > sets a deadline for discussion of received proposals at an upcoming OPM. It > does not have the concept of an "opening date" for receipt or circulation > on the list of sufficiently developed, in-scope proposals. > > I think a more appropriate version of 2.3.1 would be: > > 2.3.1 Chair responsibilities > In addition to the roles described in Section 2.3 above, the responsibilities > of the Chair are listed below. > - Delegate tasks to Co-Chairs as necessary > - Monitor mailing list discussions > - Call for presentations on the appropriate mailing list > - Read or review submitted proposals or presentations > - Accept or reject policy proposals for discussion > - Accept or reject informational presentations for the forthcoming SIG Forum > - Liaise with speakers as necessary > - Coordinate with APNIC Secretariat to publish the SIG Forum agenda. > > The Chair will refer to the SIG Charter in making a decision to accept or > reject a policy proposal for discussion or an informational presentation. > > The Chair may decide that a proposal or presentation is not suitable for > discussion at the forthcoming SIG Forum if has not been received before the > deadline, or if the agenda has already been filled by topics of greater > priority. > > > Please note I've removed "APNIC Conference" as I agree with Aftab and > Philip on the matter. SIG Forums and OPMs occur twice a year, APNIC > Conferences happen once a year. > > Regards, > > Jon > > > On Sat, 8 Aug 2026, at 02:54, Gaurav Kansal 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] > > > https://jon.brewer.nz/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
