<div dir="ltr">Agree with Adam's proposed text.<div><br></div><div style>As for economies or countries, we can be vague in order to avoid political disputes.</div><div style><br></div><div style>How about the following?</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>"<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.399999618530273px">Asia Pacific Region: shall be the areas covered by South and</span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.399999618530273px">Central Asia; East and South East Asia; Oceania and Western Pacific</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.399999618530273px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.399999618530273px">Islands</span><br></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.399999618530273px"><br></span></div><div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.399999618530273px">best,</span></div>
<div style><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14.399999618530273px"><br></span></div><div style><br></div><div style>izumi</div><div style><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
2013/3/29 parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
On Friday 29 March 2013 11:58 AM, Adam Peake wrote:<br>
> Also agree with Edmon. Point of our recent discussions has been to<br>
> ensure the AP IGF is more inclusive. How about:<br>
><br>
> Asia Pacific Region: shall be the economies covered by<br>
<br>
</div>Again, can we say 'countries'<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
parminder<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
> South and<br>
> Central Asia; East and South East Asia; Oceania and Western Pacific<br>
> Islands [footnote, the APrIGF is an inclusive process, entities and<br>
> individuals from countries/economies included in other geographic and<br>
> political definitions of the "Asia Pacific" please contact the MSG<br>
> about participation.]<br>
><br>
> The current draft of the operating principles does not limit<br>
> membership to people/entities from the region, however defined.<br>
><br>
> Perhaps need some care about practicality. If allocating resources.<br>
> Accommodating languages. When talking to governments in Beijing (as I<br>
> hope we will - email sent to some GAC reps about that now) do we go<br>
> with the ICANN definition of AP and talk to countries that have other<br>
> regional IGFs to take care of them? Does that matter? (just makes<br>
> things a little less clear cut perhaps.)<br>
><br>
> Fouad, you said there's been a problem with South Asian countries.<br>
> Could you explain. As I understand South Asia they should be have<br>
> always been included, I hope.<br>
><br>
> Adam<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Kenny Huang, Ph.D. <<a href="mailto:huangksh@gmail.com">huangksh@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Dear all,<br>
>><br>
>> There are pros and cons for inclusive model and exclusive model.<br>
>> Maximizing stakeholders' interests has no doubt to be the ultimate goal,<br>
>> any decision making should be based on the principle. Such as Pacific<br>
>> Islands stakeholders' interests should not be prohibited. Either APNIC or<br>
>> APTLD doesn't limit participation for Pacific Islands stakeholders.<br>
>><br>
>> From this point of view of maximizing stakeholders' interests, the inclusive<br>
>> model demonstrates positive externalities as the advantages outweigh<br>
>> the disadvantages.<br>
>><br>
>> Best Regards<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Kenny Huang<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 29 March 2013 06:43, Fouad Bajwa <<a href="mailto:fouadbajwa@gmail.com">fouadbajwa@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> Hi Edmon,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thats not a bad idea but we will rewind to issue number one of<br>
>>> geographical recognition and interest from a broader multistakeholder<br>
>>> participation from governments and organizations that are not aware of<br>
>>> what APNIC is or APNIC's geographical distribution.<br>
>>><br>
>>> On your idea, it brings diversity, it brings opportunity, it brings<br>
>>> scale, it brings innovation to the whole idea of regional IGF activity<br>
>>> and much more, it brings sharing. I like your model of openness and<br>
>>> inclusivity but I require your attention to the fact that there are<br>
>>> some things we will have to agree to and that is finding a solution to<br>
>>> our geographical representation within our MAG or MSG or whatever is<br>
>>> that we agree to call it.<br>
>>><br>
>>> We need more discussion on this and I think Beijing would be a good<br>
>>> place to get together and address some of these issues.<br>
>>><br>
>>> best<br>
>>><br>
>>> Fouad<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 11:31 PM, Edmon Chung <<a href="mailto:edmon@registry.asia">edmon@registry.asia</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>> I would like to offer a suggestion... which perhaps not many people like<br>
>>>> because it is messy...<br>
>>>> For our purposes, I feel we could consider being inclusive rather than<br>
>>>> exclusive. That is, to resist the restriction of participation, but rather,<br>
>>>> to invite participation from anyone who believes they belong.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Since I do not think we need to "represent" anyone, I do not think we<br>
>>>> need an exclusive approach. My belief is that this is an open forum and<br>
>>>> those who care enough for Asia Pacific are encouraged to participate. The<br>
>>>> concept of "Asia Pacific" evolves over time... our focus should be to share<br>
>>>> knowledge and make the Asia Pacific Internet Governance work better through<br>
>>>> collaboration. I personally do not see the need to "define" a hard<br>
>>>> borderline for participation.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> But that is just my opinion... and I will happily accept that it may be<br>
>>>> a minority view :-)<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Edmon<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>>> From: <a href="mailto:rigf_secretariat-bounces@ap.rigf.asia">rigf_secretariat-bounces@ap.rigf.asia</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:rigf_secretariat-">rigf_secretariat-</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:bounces@ap.rigf.asia">bounces@ap.rigf.asia</a>] On Behalf Of Keith Davidson<br>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 1:42 AM<br>
>>>>> To: <a href="mailto:rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia">rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia</a><br>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Rigf_program] Definition of 'AP region'<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Thanks Adam,<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I think the reason for this was that we were aware of the establishment<br>
>>>>> of<br>
>>>>> the Arab IGF and their initial meeting which was held last year, so the<br>
>>>>> APNIC<br>
>>>>> defined region gave a pretty clear boundary...<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> One of the issues we have in this regard is that under the ICANN ccNSO<br>
>>>>> rules<br>
>>>>> is that the Pacific Islands like American Samoa are considered to be<br>
>>>>> part of<br>
>>>>> North America, and Tahiti and New Caledonia are considered to be part<br>
>>>>> of<br>
>>>>> Europe. Yet they distinctly are Pacific Islands. And so in organising<br>
>>>>> our sub-<br>
>>>>> regional PacificIGF, I had wanted to avoid these odd demarcation lines<br>
>>>>> and<br>
>>>>> use the geographic location as the determinant factor in deciding what<br>
>>>>> the<br>
>>>>> sub-region was. Again, I think the APNIC regional boundaries are better<br>
>>>>> than<br>
>>>>> the ICANN ccNSO politically motivated boundaries.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Just incidentally, APTLD has a fluid option, allowing countries who are<br>
>>>>> on the<br>
>>>>> immediate border of the ICANN ccNSO defined AP region to choose to<br>
>>>>> belong<br>
>>>>> to APTLD or elsewhere - so it is possible that USA / Canada / Central<br>
>>>>> and<br>
>>>>> Southern Americas countries who have borders in the Pacific ocean etc<br>
>>>>> could<br>
>>>>> choose to belong to APTLD.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Maybe we could apply the same flexibility to our approach for the<br>
>>>>> APrIGF? It<br>
>>>>> would seem preferable to allow the greatest amount of flexibility of<br>
>>>>> choice<br>
>>>>> for individual countries and territories to opt in or opt out of<br>
>>>>> participation?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Cheers<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Keith<br>
>>>>> On 28/03/2013 11:43 p.m., Adam Peake wrote:<br>
>>>>>> Hi<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Please see<br>
>>>>>> <<a href="http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/organization/apnics-region" target="_blank">http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/organization/apnics-region</a>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> The group decided to adopt the APNIC's definition of the region<br>
>>>>>> during<br>
>>>>>> discussions at the end of last year. I don't recall all what was<br>
>>>>>> said<br>
>>>>>> now...<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> ICANN's region goes east to Iran. Other intergovernmental org<br>
>>>>>> definitions include the pacific rim countries (from Canada/Alaska to<br>
>>>>>> Chile).<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I think this definition is quite logical and avoids duplication with<br>
>>>>>> other IGFs rather than excludes, but I could be wrong.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Best,<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Adam<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Fouad Bajwa <<a href="mailto:fouadbajwa@gmail.com">fouadbajwa@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>> AP leaves a vacuum to South Asian countries and that has remained a<br>
>>>>>>> contentious issue.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Fouad<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 3:35 PM, HiroHOTTA <<a href="mailto:hotta@jprs.co.jp">hotta@jprs.co.jp</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>> In the draft of Operating Principles document, AP region is defined<br>
>>>>>>>> as "the economies covered by APNIC". This difinition is different<br>
>>>>>>>> from that of ICANN or APTLD. I don't have specific preference at<br>
>>>>>>>> this moment, but I'd like to know the background why APNIC<br>
>>>>>>>> definition is selected. Also, I'd like to confirm there is no<br>
>>>>>>>> vacuum between the areas defined by APrIGF and by other regional<br>
>>>>>>>> IGF<br>
>>>>>>>> organizations (such as Arab IGF).<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> (I believe this must have already been desicussed, but le me ask)<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Hiro<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>> Rigf_program mailing list<br>
>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia">Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia</a><br>
>>>>>>>> <a href="https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program" target="_blank">https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program</a><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>> Regards.<br>
>>>>>>> --------------------------<br>
>>>>>>> Fouad Bajwa<br>
>>>>>>> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's<br>
>>>>>>> Governance:<br>
>>>>>>> <a href="http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/</a><br>
>>>>>>> Follow my Tweets: <a href="http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa</a><br>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>> Rigf_program mailing list<br>
>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia">Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia</a><br>
>>>>>>> <a href="https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program" target="_blank">https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program</a><br>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> Rigf_program mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a href="mailto:Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia">Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia</a><br>
>>>>>> <a href="https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program" target="_blank">https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program</a><br>
>>>>>> .<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> Rigf_program mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia">Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program" target="_blank">https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program</a><br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> Rigf_secretariat mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:Rigf_secretariat@ap.rigf.asia">Rigf_secretariat@ap.rigf.asia</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_secretariat" target="_blank">https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_secretariat</a><br>
>>>>> -----<br>
>>>>> No virus found in this message.<br>
>>>>> Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com" target="_blank">www.avg.com</a><br>
>>>>> Version: 2013.0.2904 / Virus Database: 2641/6209 - Release Date:<br>
>>>>> 03/27/13<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Rigf_program mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia">Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia</a><br>
>>>> <a href="https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program" target="_blank">https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> Regards.<br>
>>> --------------------------<br>
>>> Fouad Bajwa<br>
>>> ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor<br>
>>> My Blog: Internet's Governance: <a href="http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/</a><br>
>>> Follow my Tweets: <a href="http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Rigf_program mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia">Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program" target="_blank">https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> Rigf_program mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia">Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia</a><br>
>> <a href="https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program" target="_blank">https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program</a><br>
>><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Rigf_program mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia">Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia</a><br>
> <a href="https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program" target="_blank">https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Rigf_program mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia">Rigf_program@ap.rigf.asia</a><br>
<a href="https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program" target="_blank">https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br> >> Izumi Aizu <<<br>Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo<br>Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, <br>
Japan<br><a href="http://www.anr.org" target="_blank">www.anr.org</a><br>
</div>