On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 at 22:06, Gaurav Kansal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > *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 point 3, thank you for clarifying. I accept that the current Working Group did not introduce the EC’s removal role and that the additional text in v005 is actually intended to provide due process around an existing provision. However, that does not address my substantive concern. The fact that this wording has existed since v003 does not establish the governance basis for this power. In fact, it raises the question of what authority or community decision supported the change from “will be removed” in v001/v002 to giving the EC discretion to remove an elected SIG Chair or Co-Chair in v003. I should be blamed for this as well for not picking up this issue in the past joint SIG meetings but since we are trying to fix the guidelines now, then lets do it properly. There is an important distinction here, SIGs are community-led forums, not EC sub-committees. SIGs Chairs and Co-Chairs are elected by the community and do not exercise authority delegated to them by the EC. If the community reaches consensus that a Chair or Co-Chair should be removed, then the community has already made that decision and I do not see why the EC needs discretion to make or approve it. SIGs are informal structure, keep it that way. The first paragraph of section 3.6 is even more concerning because it allows the EC to remove an elected Chair or Co-Chair based on attendance without any requirement for community consensus. While I do appreciate the additional procedural safeguards in v005 working group has tried to fit in, but due process around the exercise of a power does not establish the basis for that power in the first place. I believe in the absence of any authority given to EC through by-laws, removal of a community-elected SIG Chair or Co-Chair should remain a decision of the community that elected them. Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
