[Rigf_program] Definition of 'AP region'

Fri Mar 29 15:19:43 HKT 2013

On Friday 29 March 2013 11:58 AM, Adam Peake 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

Again, can we say 'countries'

parminder

> 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
>

_______________________________________________
Rigf_program mailing list
Rigf_program at ap.rigf.asia
https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program