<font face="trebuchet ms,sans-serif">I'm happy to support adoption of Adam's proposed text including footnote...</font><div><font face="trebuchet ms,sans-serif"><br clear="all"></font><div><font color="#330099" face="'comic sans ms', sans-serif"><i><font size="6">C</font><font size="4">heryl </font><font size="6">L</font><font size="4">angdon-</font><font size="6">O</font><font size="4">rr ... </font></i></font><b><font color="#330099">(CLO)</font></b><div>
<a href="http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr" target="_blank">http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr</a></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 29 March 2013 17:28, Adam Peake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp" target="_blank">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
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 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>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Adam<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><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>
>><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>
>> >> >> --<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>
>> > _______________________________________________<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>
>> --<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>
> _______________________________________________<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>