Summary

  • APNIC General Counsel Jeremy Harrison said EC members eligible for re-election in the election being overseen must leave the discussion and abstain when the EC selects its Electoral Committee.
  • The September 2025 minutes record three abstentions on the resolution appointing the 2026 committee; the by-laws give the EC appointment authority and the committee powers over nominee eligibility and conduct.
  • A member has asked whether the recusal practice should be formalized. The public exchange records a question and a referral to the EC, not a proposed rule or Council decision.

A practice disclosed in a public exchange

APNIC Executive Council Chair Kenny Huang’s 27 August preview said the EC would consider appointing the 2027 Electoral Committee. The committee oversees nominations, assesses candidate eligibility and monitors nominee conduct. In the comment thread, a member asked how the process handles EC members who may stand for re-election while choosing the body that oversees the next contest.

On 7 September, General Counsel and Company Secretary Jeremy Harrison replied that every EC member eligible for re-election in the relevant election has a material conflict. Those members, he said, recuse themselves from discussion and abstain from the selection decision. Harrison described this as the practice since the Electoral Committee’s inception and pointed readers to the September 2025 minutes as an example. (APNIC EC Chair’s preview and comment thread)

The minutes show abstentions, not their explanation

The published minutes for the EC meeting of 7–8 September 2025 record Resolution 2025-17, appointing five people to the 2026 Electoral Committee. The resolution passed, and the minutes list Vincent “Achie” Atienza, Sumon Ahmed Sabir and Kam Sze Yeung as abstaining. The minutes do not explain those abstentions. Harrison’s later public comment supplies the Council’s stated recusal context; it does not turn the minutes into a record of private declarations or every part of the discussion. (September 2025 EC minutes, Agenda Item 8)

The distinction matters because the committee is not merely advisory. The APNIC by-law text dated 12 February 2026 says in section 42 that the EC must establish a committee for each EC election, appointing between three and seven members. The committee can determine nominee eligibility, enforce a Code of Conduct and exclude nominees in specified circumstances. Section 43 separately requires an independent Election Chair with no material interest in the election’s outcome. The posted text does not expressly state the EC-member recusal described by Harrison. Its document page labels the text “DRAFT” while also saying it was amended by member resolution on 12 February 2026, so that metadata should not be glossed over. (APNIC by-laws)

The open question is how the practice becomes observable

The member who raised the issue later asked whether the practice should be written into the by-laws and whether continuity recommendations from a previous committee could create an indirect conflict. Harrison’s 15 September answer directed suggestions to the EC through MyAPNIC, the APNIC website or member-meeting microphones. That response did not announce a formal amendment, a member-ratification process or a Council decision. (APNIC comment thread)

The governance chain is therefore visible in pieces: members elect the EC; the by-laws put committee appointment with the EC; the committee can affect who remains eligible to stand; Counsel says members of the EC who are themselves eligible for re-election step aside from the appointment discussion and vote. Publishing who was eligible, who recused and how the resolution passed lets members check that separation without presuming that anyone acted improperly.