Dear Anupam,
Thank you for these comments. They are very useful, and the Working Group has taken them seriously. *1. Scope of the draft compared with the 9 June meeting* Your reading of the minutes is correct. Those five items are what the Working Group agreed unanimously on 9 June. Some context may help. At that meeting the Working Group went through the current Guidelines, and also the changes proposed by Christopher Hawker, Bertrand Cherrier, Karl Kloppenborg and Terry Sweetser, point by point. The five items you list are where the Working Group reached full agreement. The discussion covered more ground, and the meeting closed with the Working Group being asked to prepare a draft proposal for community discussion. The wider scope was then published. On 13 July the Working Group posted its Draft Recommendations to the list. That document set out twelve issues, not five, and was open for comment for a month before the draft text was published. *2. The Working Group should not determine consensus* The Working Group agrees, and this is already how the draft works. Under Section 8, a proposal goes to the mailing lists of all SIGs at least four weeks before a joint SIG Forum. A panel made up of one Chair from each SIG then guides that Forum and determines the outcome. The outcome goes to the AGM/AMM. The Working Group has no role in deciding consensus at any stage. Its role ends when it presents its recommendations. *3. A single consensus call for the whole package* This is a fair point, and the Working Group has no objection to the call being structured in more than one part. You are right that a participant may support some parts and object to others. Several comments on this list already show that pattern. How the consensus call is run is a matter for the SIG Chairs and the community rather than for the Working Group, but the Working Group will raise your point with them and will support whatever structure the community prefers. *4. The APNIC EC as a body that can establish a Working Group* You are correct that this is new. The current Guidelines do not say who may establish a Working Group. The draft adds that paragraph. The wording lists SIGs, the AGM/AMM and the APNIC EC as examples. It is meant to describe bodies that in practice create Working Groups, rather than to give any of them new authority. On three of your four requirements, the same new paragraph already covers them. It says the decision to establish a Working Group must record its mandate, scope, tasks or activities, membership, reporting line and expected timeframe, as its Terms of Reference. It also says a Working Group is accountable to the body that established it, and is closed once its tasks are complete or by the same means used to establish it. On your fourth point, about safeguards against bypassing consensus, a Working Group can only make recommendations. It cannot change these Guidelines. Any change still needs consensus across all SIGs under Section 8. So no Working Group, whoever establishes it, can bypass that. *5. Defining the Joint SIGs Forum* Part of this is already in the draft, and part of your point is well made. Section 1.7 defines a joint SIG Forum as a joint meeting of all SIGs held in accordance with the document. Section 8 covers some of the rest: all SIGs take part, a panel of one Chair from each SIG guides the Forum, and that panel determines the outcome. *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, so all of the above will be taken to that session for the community to decide. Thank you again. Your comments have been among the most useful the Working Group has received. Regards, Gaurav Kansal on behalf of the SIG Guidelines Review Working Group On Fri, 14 Aug 2026 at 14:03, Anupam Agrawal <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Gaurav, > > I welcome the publication of the full draft text for community review. > Below are some pointers for the consideration of the Working Group. > > 1. The scope of the revised draft appears broader than the matters > agreed by the Working Group at its 9 June meeting, as reflected in the > minutes circulated on 10 June. My understanding is that the agreed work > covered definitions of SIG and consensus, defining the SIG lifecycle, term > limits for individuals, a process for future SIG Guidelines changes, and an > appeals process. It would be helpful if the Working Group could identify > which changes implement these agreed matters, which are consequential > drafting changes, and which are new proposals. > 2. Under both the current and proposed Guidelines, a Working Group is > task-specific. Its role should end with presenting recommendations to the > body that created it. Accordingly, consensus should be considered through > the Joint SIGs forum, rather than determined by the Working Group. > 3. Term limits, Chair removal, SIG dissolution, and related changes > are independently significant. A participant may support some provisions > and object to others. A single consensus call for the entire package may > therefore be insufficient; consensus cannot be inferred for the whole > package merely because there is broad support for some of its components. > 4. The existing concept of a Working Group is rooted in the SIG > Guidelines and, in practice, in SIG-led work. What is the rationale for > expressly including the APNIC EC as a body able to establish a Working > Group under the SIG Guidelines? If this authority is retained, the text > should clearly define the WG’s scope, accountability, reporting line, and > safeguards against bypassing SIG or wider community consensus. > 5. Given the addition of several new definitions and governance > concepts, the “Joint SIGs Forum” should also be defined. The Guidelines > should clarify its composition, role, how its agenda is set, who chairs it, > and how consensus is assessed and recorded. This is particularly important > where a Working Group’s work has implications across all SIGs. > > > At the end, the SIGs reflect two fundamental principles: a bottom-up > process and community-driven decision-making. My understanding was that > this revision was intended to streamline components which, over time, > required change to reflect operational reality. However, the exercise now > appears to have become a broader constitutional review of the SIG > Guidelines. Requesting that these principles be coded in the definition of > SIG so that it never gets out of focus. > > Regards > Anupam > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2026 at 8:30 PM 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]
