[Rigf_program] Definition of 'AP region'

Izumi AIZU iza at anr.org
Fri Mar 29 16:53:54 HKT 2013 

Agree with Adam's proposed text.

As for economies or countries, we can be vague in order to avoid political
disputes.

How about the following?

"Asia Pacific Region: shall be the areas covered by South and
Central Asia; East and South East Asia; Oceania and Western Pacific
Islands

best,


izumi



2013/3/29 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

>
> 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
>
>


-- 
                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
Japan
www.anr.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.dotasia.org/pipermail/rigf_secretariat/attachments/20130329/5006f923/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
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