The Gateway of India, Mumbai — host city of APNIC 62, where Stage 2 of the consultation was held. Credit: Pdpics / WikiCommons.
APNIC’s community asked why its leadership pipeline doesn’t look like the region it serves. Its first consultation findings point to pathways, incumbency and employer support — and to a question every association board should ask about its own succession.
MUMBAI, India — In June, the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) , the regional internet registry for the Asia-Pacific — began asking its community a question most associations only confront during a succession crisis: why doesn’t our leadership pipeline look like the community it serves?
The first stage of that consultation, published on 4 September, ran online from June to August through three open listening sessions, a survey and the community mailing list. Forty-nine people from 21 economies took part — APNIC members, national internet registries, network operator groups and other community members — and diversity was deliberately defined broadly, covering gender, geography, professional background, expertise and lived experience.
What the Consultation Found
The findings are less about identity than about design. Three themes emerged. First, leadership pathways: participants asked for clearer information about roles, responsibilities, election processes, expected skills and how to get involved. Second, election barriers: incumbent advantage, voting dynamics and the specific challenges facing candidates from less-represented economies. Third, time and support: community leadership requires a significant commitment, and whether someone can take it on depends on professional, personal and employer support.
It is worth being precise about what stage this is. APNIC is consulting, not deciding. Participants suggested possible initiatives — clearer candidate information, stronger mentoring and leadership development, and learning from governance approaches used by organisations such as ICANN, auDA and NZNOG — but nothing has been adopted. Stage 2 took the conversation to APNIC 62 in Mumbai on 9 September, in a dedicated session with remote participation. After that, the Secretariat will combine the findings into a final report; the council will review it and consider next steps, and the report will be shared with the community after the council’s end-of-year meeting. The distinction between what is being consulted on, what has been proposed and what is eventually adopted is the difference between an exercise and a change.
The Quiet Filters Before the Ballot Box
The governance question underneath is one every association should recognise: do we unintentionally design leadership pathways that favour people who already have the time, resources, employer support, visibility and networks required to participate?
An open election does not necessarily mean an equal opportunity to become a leader. Consider the path to APNIC’s Executive Council — seven elected seats, filled by member organisations at the annual general meeting, with the council meeting face-to-face four times a year on top of its ongoing work. A capable member must first be visible enough in the community to be encouraged to stand — something that compounds over years of meetings, working groups and mailing-list presence. They need clarity about what the job is and how the election works. They need permission: for many candidates, the deciding variable is whether an employer will let them take it on. Only then do they reach the ballot, where name recognition and incumbent advantage shape the vote. Each filter is neutral on its face. Together, they quietly select for people who were already resourced, visible and supported.
“An open election does not necessarily mean an equal opportunity to become a leader. Each neutral-looking filter shapes who can stand — and who can win.”
What It Means for Your Board
For associations, the transferable value of APNIC’s exercise is its diagnostic. Run your own pipeline through the same three questions:
- Can a first-timer read the path?
If a newcomer read your role descriptions and election materials today, could they tell you what the job is, how the process works, what skills matter and where to start? - Can the pool afford to participate?
If a strong candidate lacks employer backing, travel budget or flexible time, is there a mechanism — mentoring, funding, adjusted expectations — that keeps them in the pool? - Does nomination search, or confirm?
Does your nomination committee actively look beyond the usual circles, or bless the candidates who were already visible?
Mentoring and clearer materials are not acts of charity; they are pipeline management. A succession strategy that draws only from the already-visible pool will reproduce the pool — and, with it, the gaps that prompted the strategy in the first place.
The Question to Keep
The question APNIC’s consultation poses to every association is this: what would need to change for a capable member from a less-represented economy , or sector, or region, or background , to realistically compete for a leadership role?
The first checkpoint is the final report after the council’s end-of-year meeting, which will show how far the findings travel from consultation to decision. The more telling checkpoints come later: whether the next cohort of elected leaders looks more like the community than the last, and whether a consultation ends as a decision or a statement of intent. That is the story worth following.
