APNIC Home

Proposed APNIC By-law Reform 2025

In response to community feedback, community consultation was sought earlier this year on proposals to amend the APNIC By-laws by:

  • Extending Executive Council (EC) member’s terms from two to three years; and
  • Introducing terms limits of three terms for EC members.

In light of general community support for the proposals during the online consultation session held in April, the EC is now seeking community feedback on the implementation of the By-law amendments.

Please consider the following implementation questions.

Structure of term limits

Questions:

  • Should EC members be limited to three terms with no possibility of re-election, or
  • Should they be eligible to seek re-election after a cooling-off period of one or two years?

Considerations:

Term limits are designed to bring new people and ideas into the Executive Council, but they also mean experienced EC members will eventually leave. Some people may believe EC members should serve a maximum of three terms and then step down permanently. Others may think EC members should be allowed to return after a break of one or two years. A strict limit encourages renewal and diversity, while a break period allows the community to bring back experienced leaders if desired. When giving feedback, the community may wish to consider how these options affect renewal, continuity, and fairness.

Application to current and former EC members

Questions:

  • Should term limits apply immediately (allowing current terms to be completed),
  • Should there be a grace period (for example, one additional term), or
  • Should the limits apply only to terms served after the adoption of the new rules?

Considerations:

If new term limits are introduced, the question is how to apply them. One option is to apply the limits immediately, after the current terms of EC members finish. Another is to allow a grace period, such as one extra full term, before the limits take effect. A third option is to start counting terms only after the new rules are adopted. Immediate application shows strong commitment to change, but it may result in abrupt changes and loss of knowledge and experience. A phased approach could make the transition smoother and protect stability, but may delay the immediate introduction of new people and ideas. When giving feedback, the community may wish to consider how these approaches affect fairness, stability, and the pace of change.

Get involved and share your feedback – APNIC-talk & APNIC 60 session

To facilitate this discussion, the EC will host a session at APNIC 60 in Da Nang, Viet Nam on 11 September 2025. We encourage all APNIC Members and interested community members to attend this session, online or in person, to share their views.

Feedback and discussion are also welcome on the APNIC-talk mailing list, where community dialogue continues to play a vital role in shaping APNIC’s governance.

The consultation period will be open until 26 September 2025.

Provide your feedback

Proposed reforms

Proposal 1 – Extension of Executive Council terms

It is proposed that APNIC EC member’s terms are extended from two to three years.

Current APNIC position

APNIC EC members each serve a two-year term, but are eligible for re-election (by-law 33).

Position of other RIRs and ICANN

The proposal is consistent with the position of all the other RIRs and ICANN. The terms of their directors are
three years.

Considerations

Three-year terms are more in line with industry standards and reflect good corporate governance in so far as
they allow for:

  • Stability in leadership: With the current two-year terms, there is the potential for four seats (more
    than half of the elected EC members) to change every two years, which could lead to significant
    instability and loss of experience and corporate knowledge.
  • Greater accountability: Involvement in and accountability for multiple years of budget and activity
    planning, providing a greater opportunity to shape APNIC’s strategic priorities.
  • Increased expertise: A three-year term allows EC members to deepen their understanding of the priorities
    of APNIC Members and the challenges, policies, and culture of APNIC, which can lead to better
    decision-making.

Proposal 2 – Introduction of Executive Council term limits

It is proposed that a term limit of three terms is introduced for the EC members.

Current position

The by-laws do not provide for term limits for APNIC’s EC members.

Position of other RIRs and ICANN

The directors of ICANN and ARIN cannot serve more than three consecutive terms. AFRINIC, LACNIC, and RIPE NCC do
not currently impose term limits on their board members.

Considerations
  • Board renewal: Term limits ensure there is adequate opportunity for EC renewal, allowing for fresh
    perspectives and new ideas to be introduced.
  • Leadership opportunities: They provide greater opportunities for the next generation of leaders to
    participate in APNIC’s governance, fostering a diverse and dynamic EC.

Consultation 1 – April 2025

The EC held a community consultation on the Proposed Reforms from 7 to 18 April 2025.

Below is a sample of the feedback and questions received in the online community consultation session held on Monday, 7 April 2025 at 14:00 (UTC +10). The recording and full transcript of the consultation is available.

Feedback and questions on the proposals

Feedback summary

There was general support for the proposals from those who provided feedback during the online consultation
session.

One community member noted that the community is already quite familiar with the current mechanism and that this
proposal makes simple things even more complicated.

The EC were also asked by a community member to provide their comments on the proposals. Kenny Huang, Roopinder
Singh Perhar, and Achie Atienza spoke in favour of the proposals.

Question: Can EC members be re-elected after three terms?
Secretariat answer: The proposal is presented as an absolute limit of three terms, meaning an EC member
could not be re-elected after serving three terms. We encourage the community to provide feedback on this.

Question: How will the reforms apply to the current EC members?
Secretariat answer: This has not been determined yet. How they will be implemented will be considered
after receiving the community’s feedback.

We note that the change in term lengths will require a transitional period.

We encourage you to provide your feedback on how the reforms might be applied to the current EC members.
Community feedback:

  • The EC Members should move to three-year terms if they are re-elected, provided they haven’t been in the
    seat for something close to nine-years.
  • If the candidate has been an EC member for 10 years (five terms), then they should not be allowed to
    renominate. If they have been on the EC for less time, they can be re-elected for three years, but we
    will need to decide how we count the number of terms, or if it’s per year or per term.
  • One approach is to look at the existing amount of years that each EC member has currently served for and
    use that as a way to determine whether or not they stand for re-election, to align with nine years.

Question: LACNIC and RIPE NCC do not have term limits. Is there a reason for this different structure?
Secretariat answer: The Secretariat advised that they were not aware of the reasons why LACNIC or RIPE
NCC do not have term limits, or if it has previously been considered by their communities.

Following the consultation session, it has been confirmed that to the best of our knowledge the LACNIC and RIPE
NCC Members have not formally considered term limits for their respective board members.

Question: What is the consultation and reform process?
Secretariat answer: The process will involve:

  1. Community consultation on the high-level proposals, via feedback during this webinar and on the
    APNIC-Talk mailing list by 18 April 2025
  2. EC review of feedback and development of final proposals
  3. Information sessions on final proposals
  4. Member vote

Community feedback:

  • I’d like to see separately to this a framework in place as to how we get new involvement in the
    community. I think there is a lot of appetite for there to be kind of a navigable structure. I’ve seen
    in the community several people commenting about getting lost within the kind of APNIC Framework and how
    to participate.

Question: What is the status of the suggested reform to introduce appointed independent directors?

Secretariat answer: The EC discussed this suggestion from Jonathan Brewer and responded to him, which can
be found on the EC correspondence and feedback page on the APNIC website. The EC advised that further
consideration was needed, especially with regard to the potential impact on the EC’s structure and processes if
independent directors were introduced.

The EC has committed to continuing to consider the proposal.

Community feedback:

  • As a community member, we definitely think that the APNIC EC Board does need a bit of diversity. I know
    that everyone wants it to be diverse, but we are not seeing that much diversity.