APRICOT 2026 / APNIC 61 brought the Internet number resource policy community together at a critical point for several active proposals. As a 2025 APNIC Policy Fellow and now more directly engaged in the process, I’ve been able to deepen my understanding of regional policy development, not only as a participant but as a contributor focused on outcomes — understanding where proposals stand, what concerns remain, and how to help move them towards consensus.
The conference provided a timely opportunity to re-engage with the community. This came at a point when several proposals I have been involved with — one that I authored and one I co-authored — were due for substantive discussion.
Having been through the full APNIC Policy Development Process (PDP) before, from drafting and mailing list consultation through to the Open Policy Meeting (OPM), I approached this conference differently from earlier years. Rather than focusing on the process, I focused on outcomes. I wanted to understand where the community stood on the proposals I presented, what concerns remained, and how I could contribute constructively to moving discussions towards resolution and consensus.
Policy in motion at APNIC 61
The Policy 101 session reinforced why supporting new participants matters as much as the substance of any proposal. Observing the role-play exercise with fresh eyes showed how much the PDP depends on how proposals are presented and contextualized.
A technically sound proposal can still struggle if it does not anticipate the operational concerns of network operators. It can also struggle if its rationale is not clearly linked to a demonstrated community need. I have experienced this firsthand. Clearly defining the problem, specifying the proposed change, and assessing the likely impact across different network environments is challenging. Community feedback is valuable, but it is not always immediate or predictable.
The OPM confirmed several points I have come to understand through prior engagement. Rough consensus is a working mechanism, not a rubber stamp, and the handling of objections during the meeting reflected this. I focused not only on whether objections were raised, but also on how the chair and the APNIC Secretariat identified the substance behind them. There is a clear difference between an objection that reflects a genuine operational concern and one that reflects unfamiliarity with the proposal. Both require attention, but they need different responses. This level of judgement develops through sustained participation, and the community demonstrated it across most of the agenda.
My conversations at this meeting were shaped more by existing relationships than by new introductions. I spoke with network operators across the region whose perspectives helped me test the operational assumptions in proposals. I also had detailed discussions with colleagues from civil society and research who track long-term trends in Internet number resource policy and its equity implications. These conversations are part of the PDP. They help refine my thinking before and after writing a proposal. The Asia Pacific region includes a wide range of network environments. Proposals that do not account for this diversity often encounter avoidable resistance during drafting.
Consensus in progress
I presented two proposals: prop-164: Allocations of IPv6 resources longer than a /32 with a nibble boundary alignment, and prop-168: Increase to maximum IPv4 delegations. For prop-164, Luke Thompson (my co-author) and I did not seek a consensus call. This was because we had not received enough substantive feedback at APNIC 60 or on the Policy SIG mailing list. The nibble boundary issue is not only about operational convenience. It also affects routing table growth — the number of entries networks must manage, and prefix management at scale. The discussion considered these tradeoffs carefully, rather than favouring one type of network over others.
Prop-168 raised more contested questions. It focused on how the community should balance further IPv4 policy adjustments against the need to accelerate IPv6 adoption. The proposal did not reach consensus. However, the discussion clarified where the main areas of disagreement lie. This provides a clearer basis for further review and for continued discussion at APNIC 62 in Mumbai.
Outcomes over process
Looking back on my participation since APNIC 60, I see a clear change in how I engage with the PDP. Earlier, I focused on building understanding — learning procedures, terminology, and stakeholders. Now, the work is more analytical and more demanding. Writing a proposal requires taking a position and defending it. It also requires being willing to revise when the community identifies gaps and being clear about the limits of what a policy can achieve. Proposals progress more effectively when authors anticipate major objections and address them in the text, rather than relying on the Open Policy Meeting to identify issues that could have been resolved earlier.
My priorities following APRICOT 2026/APNIC 61 are clear. I will continue engaging on the mailing list for the proposals discussed at this meeting. I will follow up with stakeholders to better understand their concerns. I will also revise proposals to address the gaps identified during the OPM.
I also want to involve colleagues from my own network environment more actively. They should contribute as participants with relevant operational experience and a stake in how Internet number resource policy develops across the region. The value of the community depends on who participates and how seriously they engage with the substance. This remains a focus for my ongoing work.
Christopher Hawker is a network engineer and systems administrator. He is an APNIC 2025 Policy Fellow, an APNIC Foundation Internet Standards Ambassador at IETF 119, and serves on the board of Internet Australia (the Australian chapter of the Internet Society). He is passionate about Internet policy and governance.
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.