Summary

  • Bertrand Cherrier chaired APNIC's Policy SIG and in 2023 proposed a sharper clock for getting proposals onto its agenda: five weeks before the next Open Policy Meeting for authors, four weeks for chairs to send accepted proposals to the mailing list.
  • His prop-153 also spelled out what would happen to late submissions, absent presenters and proposals that had failed to reach consensus. Some could be discussed but not decided; others could be dropped and resubmitted.
  • The proposal itself failed to reach consensus at APNIC 56. Cherrier withdrew it in February 2024. A rule about getting into the room had to pass through that same room.

Five weeks for the author, four for the list

The most powerful person in a meeting may be the one holding the calendar. Before anyone debates a proposal about IP addresses, someone decides whether it arrived in time, whether its author can present, and whether a revised version gets another turn. Bertrand Cherrier put those ordinary-looking decisions into APNIC prop-153 in 2023. He was then the chair of the very Policy SIG whose submission process he wanted to clarify.

His second proposal text drew two lines on that calendar. Authors could formally submit a proposal from midnight after the preceding Open Policy Meeting ended until five weeks before the next one. Chairs would send accepted proposals to the Policy SIG mailing list at least four weeks before the meeting. The week's difference is the space in which a proposal crosses from author to chair to public discussion. The text tied the clock to the location of the upcoming meeting, a small detail with real consequences for a worldwide mailing list.

Cherrier came to this procedural puzzle from outside a registry office. His 2025 APRICOT nomination biography describes him as a systems administrator at an ISP in New Caledonia, a Policy SIG co-chair from 2017 and chair from 2021. It also records his own account of long ISP work and local technical-community organising. The biography establishes his roles; the proposal shows the precise authority he asked the process to make explicit.

The chair's red pen

The draft had more teeth than a reminder email. A proposal arriving after the five-week limit could still be discussed at the Open Policy Meeting, but no decision could be made there on it. The author would have to resubmit in time for the following meeting to pursue it. If an author could not present in person or remotely, the chairs would drop the proposal; it could return as a new submission next time. A proposal that failed to reach consensus would need amendment addressing the issues raised and a return before the five-week limit. Otherwise the chairs would drop it.

These are entry rules, not just timestamps. Discussion without a decision, a dropped paper, a new version with a new clock: each changes how much work an author must do before the room can vote by consensus. APNIC's Secretariat impact assessment described the changes as consistent with current practice and suggested wording that would be clearer for non-native English speakers. The draft still showed how much discretion sits around the word “accepted.”

The system processed Cherrier's own paper in public. APNIC records version one posted on 3 August 2023, a second version on 12 September, and no consensus at APNIC 56 on 14 September. It went back to the mailing list. Cherrier withdrew it on 29 February 2024. The current public PDP explanation continues to say proposals appear on the mailing list at least four weeks before a meeting and that chairs judge consensus there. APNIC's 2025 meeting report later thanked Cherrier as outgoing Policy SIG chair.

Original records