Hi Aftab,
Thank you, and thank you for taking the terminology point in two parts. *On the inconsistency in the draft* You are right, and the Working Group accepts this. Your argument holds. If the broad term covered both meetings, Section 3.4.3 would not need to spell out "APRICOT or APNIC standalone". The document is distinguishing them in some places and not in others, and it does not say what either term means. Your point that the Guidelines must be precise for the community, rather than reflect internal naming practice, is well made. *On unequal access to SIGs during APRICOT* This is a new point and the Working Group thinks it is an important one. As far as we are aware it has not been raised before. You are right that Routing Security SIG, NIR SIG and Cooperation SIG sit inside the ticketed APRICOT programme, while Policy SIG and the Members Meeting are on the final day and can be attended without a full APRICOT ticket. So a person can attend the conference and still have no access to the SIG whose leadership they are voting on, or whose Chair's attendance is being assessed. *On your suggested test* Your suggestion is that, where attendance matters, the test should be participation in the relevant SIG or SIG Forum rather than attendance at the surrounding conference. The Working Group thinks this is worth taking seriously. We would draw one distinction, though, about where it can be applied. For Chair and Co-Chair responsibilities, in Sections 2.3 and 3.6, this sits squarely within what this review is looking at. For voting eligibility, in Section 3.4.3, the position is different. That text was agreed by the community at APNIC 55 and this review does not change it. Applying your test there would mean reopening that decision. It should be a deliberate community choice rather than something the Working Group folds into this draft. Thank you for this. It has genuinely improved our understanding of the problem. Regards, Gaurav Kansal on behalf of the SIG Guidelines Review Working Group On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 at 05:39, Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Aug 2026 at 22:06, Gaurav Kansal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Aftab, >> >> >> Thank you for taking the time to go through the draft in detail. The >> Working Group's responses to your three points are below. >> >> >> *1. "APNIC Conference" and APRICOT* >> >> >> The Working Group understands the distinction being drawn, but >> respectfully does not think the draft is wrong on this point. >> >> >> An APNIC Conference held in conjunction with APRICOT remains an APNIC >> Conference in its own right. Co-location does not merge the two events or >> subsume one into the other. APNIC classifies and identifies each of its >> conferences as a distinct meeting, assigning it its own sequential meeting >> number, whether it is held standalone or alongside APRICOT. On that basis, >> referring to such a meeting as an APNIC Conference is consistent with >> APNIC's own naming and identification practice, and the Working Group does >> not read the draft as treating APRICOT itself as an APNIC Conference. >> >> >> So while the Working Group's view is that the current usage is correct, >> if the community would like the term expressly defined, or would prefer the >> two-part formulation used consistently throughout, that is something the >> Working Group can take forward. >> >> >> > [Responding to point 1 only. Will respond to other points separately.] > > I can accept the rationale that an APNIC meeting held in conjunction with > APRICOT may be considered an APNIC Conference in its own right from the > secretariat point of view. But then that makes me question the consistency > of the terminology in the draft itself. > > If “APNIC Conference” is intended to include both annual meetings i.e. the > meeting held alongside APRICOT and the standalone APNIC Conference then why > does the document elsewhere specifically use “APNIC standalone conference”, > and in section 3.4.3 separately refer to “APRICOT or APNIC standalone > conferences”? > > For example, section 3 states: “Elections occur yearly at APNIC standalone > conference.” > > while 3.4.3 refers to: “the immediate past eight (8) APRICOT or APNIC > standalone conferences”. > > At the same time, sections 2.3 and 3.6 use the broader term “APNIC > Conferences”. > > I think the fact that the document itself needs to distinguish “APRICOT” > from “APNIC standalone conference” in some provisions demonstrates why the > terminology needs to be defined and used consistently. We cannot treat > “APNIC Conference” covering both events in one provision while explicitly > distinguishing between APRICOT and the standalone APNIC Conference in > another without explaining what each defined term means. Again, as Philip > and both Jon pointed it out that there is a history behind why these > terminologies were used and removing them without contextual understanding > would be naive. I am less concerned about what APNIC secretariat chooses to > call the meetings for their own understanding and more concerned that the > Guidelines are precise and unambiguous for the community, thats what > matters here. > > Now, There is a related issue that I think goes beyond the terminology > around “APNIC Conference”. The Guidelines apply equally to all SIGs, but > access to some SIGs during APRICOT is not necessarily equal. Routing > Security SIG, NIR SIG and Cooperation SIG are held during the ticketed > APRICOT programme, whereas Policy SIG and the APNIC Members Meeting (AGM) > are held on the final day, which APNIC Members can attend without > purchasing a full APRICOT ticket. > > This makes “APNIC Conference attendance” a problematic proxy for SIG > participation. Someone may legitimately attend Policy SIG and the Members > Meeting without having access to the other SIG Forums. Equally, conference > attendance does not necessarily demonstrate participation in the particular > SIG whose leadership is being elected or assessed. > > Since these Guidelines govern all SIGs, not conferences, I suggest that > where attendance is relevant to voting eligibility or Chair/Co-Chair > responsibilities, the test should focus on participation in the relevant > SIG or SIG Forum rather than attendance at the surrounding conference. > > Regards, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > >
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
