[Rigf_program] Definition of 'AP region'

[Keith Davidson]

Thanks Adam,

I think the reason for this was that we were aware of the establishment 
of the Arab IGF and their initial meeting which was held last year, so 
the APNIC defined region gave a pretty clear boundary...

One of the issues we have in this regard is that under the ICANN ccNSO 
rules is that the Pacific Islands like American Samoa are considered to 
be part of North America, and Tahiti and New Caledonia are considered to 
be part of Europe. Yet they distinctly are Pacific Islands. And so in 
organising our sub-regional PacificIGF, I had wanted to avoid these odd 
demarcation lines and use the geographic location as the determinant 
factor in deciding what the sub-region was. Again, I think the APNIC 
regional boundaries are better than the ICANN ccNSO politically 
motivated boundaries.

Just incidentally, APTLD has a fluid option, allowing countries who are 
on the immediate border of the ICANN ccNSO defined AP region to choose 
to belong to APTLD or elsewhere - so it is possible that USA / Canada / 
Central and Southern Americas countries who have borders in the Pacific 
ocean etc could choose to belong to APTLD.

Maybe we could apply the same flexibility to our approach for the 
APrIGF? It would seem preferable to allow the greatest amount of 
flexibility of choice for individual countries and territories to opt in 
or opt out of participation?


Cheers

Keith
On 28/03/2013 11:43 p.m., Adam Peake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Please see <http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/organization/apnics-region>
>
> The group decided to adopt the APNIC's definition of the region during
> discussions at the end of last year.  I don't recall all what was said
> now...
>
> ICANN's region goes east to Iran. Other intergovernmental org
> definitions include the pacific rim countries (from Canada/Alaska to
> Chile).
>
> I think this definition is quite logical and avoids duplication with
> other IGFs rather than excludes, but I could be wrong.
>
> Best,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> AP leaves a vacuum to South Asian countries and that has remained a
>> contentious issue.
>>
>> Fouad
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:35 PM, HiroHOTTA <hotta at jprs.co.jp> wrote:
>>> In the draft of Operating Principles document, AP region is defined
>>> as "the economies covered by APNIC".  This difinition is different
>>> from that of ICANN or APTLD.  I don't have specific preference at
>>> this moment, but I'd like to know the background why APNIC definition
>>> is selected.  Also, I'd like to confirm there is no vacuum between
>>> the areas defined by APrIGF and by other regional IGF organizations
>>> (such as Arab IGF).
>>>
>>> (I believe this must have already been desicussed, but le me ask)
>>>
>>> Hiro
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Rigf_program mailing list
>>> Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
>>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards.
>> --------------------------
>> Fouad Bajwa
>> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor
>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
>> Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rigf_program mailing list
>> Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
>> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
> _______________________________________________
> Rigf_program mailing list
> Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program
> .
>
_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program