[Rigf_program] Definition of 'AP region'

Fri Mar 29 17:35:43 HKT 2013

I support Adam's definition with Izumi's amendment.
Hiro

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:53:54 +0900
Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> 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

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