[Rigf_program] Definition of 'AP region'

Fri Mar 29 14:32:19 HKT 2013

I'm happy to support adoption of Adam's proposed text including footnote...

*Cheryl Langdon-Orr ...  **(CLO)*
 http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr

On 29 March 2013 17:28, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.dotasia.org/pipermail/rigf_secretariat/attachments/20130329/a207317e/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program