Dear all, Below is the Secretariat impact analysis for proposal “Changes to Nomination Criteria for SIG Chair/Co-Chair Positions”. This proposal is published at https://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/drafts/sig-guidelines-prop-apnic59-apnic60-v002.txt for changes to the SIG Guidelines<https://www.apnic.net/community/participate/sigs/sig-guidelines/>.
A redline document tracking the previous changes to the proposal is also provided here<https://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/drafts/prop-sig-guidelines-v001-v002.diff.html> if you require it. There will also be a Joint SIG session<https://conference.apnic.net/60/program/program/index.html#/day/7/79/> at APNIC 60 to discuss the proposal. If agreed, the new document will be circulated for an Editorial Draft comment period following APNIC 60. Regards Melody Bendindang on behalf of APNIC Secretariat The Secretariat understands that the proposal would amend the nomination criteria for elected Chair and Co-Chair positions under the SIG Guidelines (APNIC-128 v004). As the proposal text is intended to sit under section 3.4.1 of the SIG Guidelines, the individual provisions will be referred to as ‘items’ for differentiation from existing sections of the SIG Guidelines. If the proposal is adopted, each item would be added as sub-sections under section 3.4.1. The amendments include the following: * Term limits (item 3) * Controls on corporate representation across elected roles in the APNIC community (items 4 to 6) * Demonstration of engagement with the APNIC community (items 4 and 11) The proposal text contains two items numbered as item 4. For the purposes of this assessment, these items will be referred to as 4A ('Nominees must have attended …') and 4B ('Not more than two individuals who have an association …). Scope of SIG Guidelines The scope of the SIG Guidelines is limited to the creation and operation of SIGs. 1. The SIG Guidelines cannot seek to alter the operation of anything outside its scope. 2. The SIG Guidelines may, however, take into account items outside of its scope to inform its own operations. The application of these principles to the proposal text is outlined below. Interaction with the NRO NC It is the Secretariat's understanding that items 4B and 5 would limit Corporate Group representation across elected roles in the APNIC community. As the SIG Guidelines can neither modify NRO NC eligibility requirements nor compel the removal of NRO NC members, APNIC could not enforce such requirements in relation to the NRO NC if adopted as presented. Implementation would therefore only be possible in relation to SIG positions which would create an inconsistency between the terms of the SIG Guidelines and the actual effect of them. Interaction with the EC It is the Secretariat's understanding that sub-item 5.1 would confer onto the EC power to remove SIG Chairs/Co-Chairs in accordance with item 5. The SIG Guidelines cannot enforce a requirement on the Executive Council. The powers proposed for the EC in this item are similar to sections 3.7 and 3.8 of the SIG Guidelines, which also relate to removal or resignation and are phrased as granting the EC “discretion” to exercise that power, reflecting that the EC would have the power (but is under no obligation) to do so. The authors may wish to consider what should occur if the EC chose not to exercise its power to remove an individual (e.g. under items 5 and 11 of the proposed text). Implementation impacts and requests for clarification The Secretariat notes the following potential impacts in implementing the proposed amendments to the SIG Guidelines if adopted. Requests for clarification have been included for the attention of the authors. Item Implementation impacts and requests for clarification 3 Item 3 refers to the number of “terms” served but does not identify the roles to which the “terms” relate. The Secretariat requests the clarification from the authors on whether item 3 is intended to capture prior service: * across multiple SIGs * across both Chair and Co-Chair positions * in other elected positions (i.e. EC / NRO NC / IANA RC) 4A and 9 It is the Secretariat's understanding that item 4A would introduce a requirement for nominees to have attended “past 8 prior APNIC or APRICOT conferences…” The Secretariat notes that under item 9 of the proposed amendments, the Nominees must meet the same eligibility criteria as the voters in section 3.4.3 which requires that voters must have “registered and attended… at least one of the immediate past eight” conferences as well as be “Registered and attending the current conference in person.” It is assumed that it is intended for the higher threshold to apply, however this may give rise to disputes regarding implementation as the Guidelines would provide for two inconsistent attendance requirements. The proposed wording of item 4A requires that a nominee has attended prior conferences but not to have 'registered' to attend as well. This will make verification of a nominee's past attendance a challenge for the Secretariat (e.g. where a nominee claims to have attended without registration, such as by viewing the YouTube livestream). The Secretariat requests clarification from the authors regarding the following: * Is it intended under items 4A and 9 (as applicable) of the proposed text that: * The nominee must have attended any 8 prior APNIC or APRICOT conferences or the immediate past 8 APNIC or APRICOT conferences. * The attendance threshold be higher under the proposed item 4A than the current voting/nomination eligibility requirement under section 3.4.3 of the SIG Guidelines (and also higher than the attendance threshold for EC members under APNIC By-law 34A(d)). * Nominees are not required to have registered for the prior conferences. 4B The Secretariat notes that implementation of the proposed Corporate Group criteria will require significant additional disclosure requirements for nominees and review and assessment by the Secretariat, similar to EC elections. The Secretariat will be required to implement ongoing disclosure requirements for SIG Chairs and Co-Chairs to assess any changes in their connection with a Corporate Group. While this is not an issue in relation to EC members due to ongoing conflict of interest requirements, the same obligation does not exist for SIG Chairs and Co-Chairs. This does not take into account issues presented where there is a failure to disclose (this is not an issue where this is used for EC positions given their duties as directors and ongoing disclosure requirements). The Secretariat requests clarification from the authors as to whether it is intended for SIG Chairs and Co-Chairs to be required to maintain ongoing disclosure and, if so, what the consequences would be for a failure to comply. Regarding the Secretariat's notes on the scope of the SIG Guidelines above, is it the intention of the authors that the Secretariat take into account the Corporate Group affiliations of all NRO NC members or only the APNIC NRO NC representatives? 5 The Secretariat requests clarification on what should be done under item 5 (and sub-item 5.1) of the proposed text if both SIGs would be left without an individual to chair the SIG should theirs be removed. Item 5 refers to “a member from a Corporate Group” and later refers to “individuals” from that Corporate Group. Is it intended that the reference to “member” should be to a formal member of a company (i.e. a shareholder) or just to an individual? The Secretariat assumes the latter, however would appreciate clarification. Item 5 refers to individuals from the same Corporate Group on the “NRO NC”. As drafted, the wording would apply to all individuals serving on the NRO NC, not just the APNIC representatives on the NRO NC. Is it intended that the Corporate Group rule should take into account the circumstances of all NRO NC members, including from other regions, or only APNIC representatives? Is it the intention of the authors that a SIG Chair or Co-Chair would be required to resign if the APNIC EC appoints a person to the appointed APNIC NRO NC position who is from the same Corporate Group as an existing EC Member? 6 The Secretariat notes that item 6 is a slightly altered version of the wording under APNIC By-law 35B. The use of 'Exempt Organisation' may present implementation challenges as the current drafting is not tied directly to the APNIC By-laws, which would imply that a separate Exempt Organisation list is required for the SIG Guidelines. The Secretariat requests clarification from the authors on the intended operation of this provision. We are also requesting clarification on: * Whether there is an intended threshold for 'significant shareholder' under item 6.1, noting that APNIC By-law 35B(a) refers to the term 'controlling shareholder'. * The intention of including 'registered in its respective economy' under item 6.3. 11 Please provide clarification on the intended operation of item 11 in relation to: * Is it intended that there will be no elections for SIG Chair positions if there is agreement between the Co-Chairs on who will serve as the new Chair under item 11.1 or is it intended that they will be the only eligible nominee for the Chair position and therefore “be elected via acclamation in the SIG forum room” per section 3.3 of the SIG Guidelines? * If the former (automatic appointment), how will this interact with the requirement under section 3 of the SIG Guidelines for “Chairs and Co-Chairs [to be] elected for a two-year period”? * For example, would the new Chair’s appointment be effective for two-years, despite their elected term either having ended or only having one-year remaining (depending on when they were elected as Co-Chair)? The same question applies if there is only one Co-Chair and they are by default appointed as the new SIG Chair. * If the former (automatic appointment), are they deemed to be “elected” for the purposes of items 4-7 which place restrictions on “elected” positions but not appointed positions? * If the latter (default election with only one eligible nominee), is it intended that the Secretariat require confirmation of the selection of the new Chair by a certain date in order to confirm the nominee in accordance with the election timelines under the SIG Guidelines? If so, and the Secretariat does not receive confirmation of the nominee by that date, is it intended for the Secretariat to put in place an election under item 11.5 and automatically nominate each of the existing Co-Chairs? * What is the intended treatment of a Co-Chair under item 11 where they are captured by the Corporate Group requirements under item 5, but the EC decides not to exercise their discretionary power under sub-item 5.1 to remove them. * If a Co-Chair’s term is due to end at APNIC 62 but they become the Chair at APNIC 60 under item 11, is it intended that as they have only served one-year in each role that it would be treated as a whole term under item 3? * What is the intended operation of the requirement for two-party elections under sub-item 11.2, given it does not contain date/timing requirements and elections can only be held at conferences. The Secretariat assumes that such an election would be held at the next conference, however as SIG meetings occur before the announcement of SIG election results. The relevant SIG meeting would therefore take place without a clear Chair which may give rise to issues given the absence of a Chair will have resulted from a failure to reach agreement between the two Co-Chairs.
_______________________________________________ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
