[Rigf_program] Definition of 'AP region'

Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Fri Mar 29 14:28:33 HKT 2013 

Also agree with Edmon. Point of our recent discussions has been to
ensure the AP IGF is more inclusive.  How about:

Asia Pacific Region: shall be the economies covered by South and
Central Asia; East and South East Asia; Oceania and Western Pacific
Islands [footnote, the APrIGF is an inclusive process, entities and
individuals from countries/economies included in other geographic and
political definitions of the "Asia Pacific" please contact the MSG
about participation.]

The current draft of the operating principles does not limit
membership to people/entities from the region, however defined.

Perhaps need some care about practicality.  If allocating resources.
Accommodating languages.  When talking to governments in Beijing (as I
hope we will - email sent to some GAC reps about that now) do we go
with the ICANN definition of AP and talk to countries that have other
regional IGFs to take care of them?  Does that matter? (just makes
things a little less clear cut perhaps.)

Fouad, you said there's been a problem with South Asian countries.
Could you explain.  As I understand South Asia they should be have
always been included, I hope.

Adam



On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Kenny Huang, Ph.D. <huangksh at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> There are pros and cons for inclusive model and exclusive model.
> Maximizing stakeholders' interests has no doubt to be the ultimate goal,
> any decision making should be based on the principle. Such as Pacific
> Islands stakeholders' interests should not be prohibited. Either APNIC or
> APTLD doesn't limit participation for Pacific Islands stakeholders.
>
> From this point of view of maximizing stakeholders' interests, the inclusive
> model demonstrates positive externalities as the advantages outweigh
> the disadvantages.
>
> Best Regards
>
>
> Kenny Huang
>
>
>
> On 29 March 2013 06:43, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Edmon,
>>
>> Thats not a bad idea but we will rewind to issue number one of
>> geographical recognition and interest from a broader multistakeholder
>> participation from governments and organizations that are not aware of
>> what APNIC is or APNIC's geographical distribution.
>>
>> On your idea, it brings diversity, it brings opportunity, it brings
>> scale, it brings innovation to the whole idea of regional IGF activity
>> and much more, it brings sharing. I like your model of openness and
>> inclusivity but I require your attention to the fact that there are
>> some things we will have to agree to and that is finding a solution to
>> our geographical representation within our MAG or MSG or whatever is
>> that we agree to call it.
>>
>> We need more discussion on this and I think Beijing would be a good
>> place to get together and address some of these issues.
>>
>> best
>>
>> Fouad
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Edmon Chung <edmon at registry.asia> wrote:
>> > I would like to offer a suggestion... which perhaps not many people like
>> > because it is messy...
>> > For our purposes, I feel we could consider being inclusive rather than
>> > exclusive.  That is, to resist the restriction of participation, but rather,
>> > to invite participation from anyone who believes they belong.
>> >
>> > Since I do not think we need to "represent" anyone, I do not think we
>> > need an exclusive approach.  My belief is that this is an open forum and
>> > those who care enough for Asia Pacific are encouraged to participate.  The
>> > concept of "Asia Pacific" evolves over time... our focus should be to share
>> > knowledge and make the Asia Pacific Internet Governance work better through
>> > collaboration.  I personally do not see the need to "define" a hard
>> > borderline for participation.
>> >
>> > But that is just my opinion... and I will happily accept that it may be
>> > a minority view :-)
>> >
>> > Edmon
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: rigf_secretariat-bounces at ap.rigf.asia [mailto:rigf_secretariat-
>> >> bounces at ap.rigf.asia] On Behalf Of Keith Davidson
>> >> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 1:42 AM
>> >> To: rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
>> >> Subject: Re: [Rigf_program] Definition of 'AP region'
>> >>
>> >> 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
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Rigf_secretariat mailing list
>> >> Rigf_secretariat at ap.rigf.asia
>> >> https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_secretariat
>> >> -----
>> >> No virus found in this message.
>> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> >> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6209 - Release Date:
>> >> 03/27/13
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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

More information about the Rigf_secretariat mailing list