Attending APNIC 60 in Da Nang, Viet Nam, as part of the inaugural APNIC Policy Fellowship gave me a new perspective on how the Internet’s technical and policy worlds connect. Coming from an academic and research background rather than network operations, I joined the Fellowship to understand how Internet number resource (INR) policies are shaped, and how these decisions influence the broader Internet ecosystem.
The APNIC Policy Fellowship is a new pilot program designed to support emerging leaders interested in Internet resource policy. Over 18 months, Fellows explore the Policy Development Process (PDP) through mentorship, webinars, and community engagement, learning how to research, develop, and propose policies that respond to evolving technical and industry needs. It’s a structured and well-supported program that builds skills in policy analysis, communication, and collaboration, preparing fellows to become active contributors to APNIC’s policy discussions and, eventually, leaders in Internet governance.
Through this experience, I realized the significant potential for stronger collaboration among technical experts, policymakers, and educators. This connection remains limited in many areas, yet it is essential for establishing a more inclusive and sustainable Internet governance environment.
Learning from the PDP
The Joint SIG and Open Policy Meeting sessions at APNIC 60 offered my first close look at how community policy proposals evolve through open discussion and consensus.
Topics such as whois transparency and IPv6 deployment illustrated the delicate balance between technical precision and consensus-building that defines the APNIC community’s approach. What stood out to me was how few participants came from institutions that later depend on these policies. Universities, research centres, and regulators often rely on them when developing infrastructure or teaching materials, but their voices are not always part of the conversation. Engaging them earlier could help align technical excellence with practical adoption.
During the Open Policy Meeting, several proposals were discussed. prop-162 (Whois privacy), prop-166 (RPKI revocation), and prop-167 (directory service statistics) reached consensus, while prop-164 (IPv6 allocation size) and prop-165 (IPv4 blocks for IPv6-only networks) were returned to the mailing list for further discussion. Observing this process demonstrated how carefully the community reviews each proposal to ensure both operational feasibility and regional balance.
Lessons from IPv6 allocation policy
One clear example of how technical and institutional priorities intersect is the evolution of IPv6 allocation policy. Early drafts across Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), including APNIC’s IPv6 guidelines, were designed mainly by commercial Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and required conditions such as connecting large numbers of customers. This approach worked well for industry but not for academic or research networks.
Regional research and education networks such as TEIN, bdREN, and CERNET later advanced large-scale IPv6 deployment for scientific and educational collaboration, demonstrating how early allocation policies did not fully reflect institutional realities. In Europe, advocacy from research networks like GÉANT and DFN led to the creation of provider-independent IPv6 assignments through RIPE NCC Policy 2006-01. These cases show that even technically sound policies may need revision when institutional users are not included in early discussions.
Language and accessibility in policy engagement
Bridging policy and technology also depends on communication and accessibility. Much of the policy and technical material is still shared in English, which can limit participation in regions where English is not widely spoken.
Broader linguistic access, such as translated summaries and regional outreach activities, can encourage capable contributors who might otherwise hesitate to engage. The Universal Acceptance (UA) initiative reflects a similar idea: True inclusion means ensuring that Internet systems, standards, and policy discussions are open to everyone, regardless of language or script.
Moving forward
These experiences highlight an important point: Technical precision must work together with institutional understanding. Engineers and network operators ensure feasibility, while academics, researchers, and policymakers provide context that helps policies succeed in practice. When these perspectives meet early, policy adoption becomes smoother, and community trust is stronger.
The APNIC Policy Fellowship can help create that bridge. By bringing together people from different disciplines, it provides a space where complex technical issues can be translated into ideas that make sense across sectors. For me, APNIC 60 was not only an introduction to policy development but also an opportunity to see how research and education can support the technical community.
I left Da Nang with a deeper appreciation for how inclusive, collaborative engagement can strengthen Internet policy, and a renewed motivation to keep learning from those who make this community work.
Dr Saima Nisar is a Lecturer at Xiamen University Malaysia whose work explores how people use technology and how policies shape Internet governance. An active member of the Asia Pacific Internet community, she has served as a Policy Analyst with APPO and as a Fellow at APNIC 56, APrIGF 2024, and APAN 58. Her research focuses on bridging technical and policy perspectives to create practical, inclusive digital policies.
The views expressed by the authors of this blog are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of APNIC. Please note a Code of Conduct applies to this blog.