Help shape Internet number resource policy at APRICOT 2026 / APNIC 61 in Jakarta!

It seems like only five months have passed since I published my last pre-Open Policy Meeting (OPM) update. Time has flown by!

In this post, I'll share some changes to the tool we use to gauge consensus, and two policy proposals that are up for consideration in this policy cycle, including during the upcoming APNIC 61 OPM at APRICOT 2026.

A different tool for consensus gauging

You may have seen the post on the Policy SIG mailing list about the retirement of CONFER, the APNIC-developed open source online consensus tool that had been in use since APNIC 38.

CONFER is being retired due to the time and effort required to keep the platform secure and up-to-date. I'd like to thank the developers who worked on CONFER and the community members who made contributions and provided input.

We are replacing CONFER with Zoom polls. Zoom is the platform that APNIC uses for online participation at conferences, and we actually trialled gauging consensus using Zoom once before at APNIC 52. We have conducted rigorous testing and are confident that the change will be smooth.

Two proposals are up for discussion

At the upcoming OPM, there will be two proposals up for discussion.

Prop-164: Allocations of IPv6 resources longer than a /32 with a nibble boundary alignment

This is a proposal to change the minimum allocation size of an IPv6 allocation from a /32 to a /36.

Currently, if you require less than a /32 IPv6 block, your only option is for an assignment, meaning that all whois records are for the entire assignment, and there is no opportunity to sub-assign (even within your own infrastructure).

Allowing allocations down to the /36 level would allow sub-assignments for more specific blocks within the /36.

This is a repeat showing from APNIC 60, where the proposal did not reach consensus. It has had no updates, but the authors would like to re-present this to try to get some feedback. The authors have also indicated that they will not be seeking a consensus call for this proposal.

Prop-168: Increase to maximum IPv4 delegations

Since prop-127, the maximum IPv4 delegation size has been set to a /23. Prop-168 aims to increase the maximum delegation to a /22, with some conditions:

1. You cannot have transferred ANY IPv4 resources out of your membership account.
2. If you already have an aggregate holding of a /22 or greater, regardless of how you attained the address space (for example, through a merger or market transfer), you are not eligible.
3. If you are eligible for the additional address space, transfers are prohibited for ALL resources in the account for a period of five years from the most recent delegation.
4. The normal needs assessment still applies.

This is not the first time that a proposal like this has been put forward.

Prop-149 attempted to do this in 2023, but the authors presented a different version at the OPM than what was discussed on the mailing list, and it was subsequently abandoned.

Prop-141 also attempted a modest increase (to an additional /24), which also did not reach consensus.

There is also a section in prop-168 to reserve a /16 of IPv4 address space for IPv6 transition cases. This block would come into effect for IPv6 networks that still require a single /24 of IPv4 for the transition. Assignments from this transitional block are not transferable.

Got your own policy idea?

That's all I have for you this time around.

If you've spotted a gap in the current policy framework, have operational experience worth sharing, or want to make improvements, now is the perfect time to submit a proposal. You don't need to be a policy expert - the Special Interest Group (SIG) Chairs and APNIC Secretariat are here to help.

Get involved today!

There are two ways that you can get involved with Internet number resource policy:

Whether it's your first time participating or you're a long-time contributor, APRICOT 2026 / APNIC 61 is the place to help shape the future of Internet number resource policy in the Asia Pacific region. Read the proposals, join the conversation, and make your voice heard!

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.