[discuss] Technical v "societal" issues = stakeholder "roles"

[Milton L Mueller]

Brian,
The most interesting and significant part of your response is this:

-----Original Message-----
>But this is exactly where the consistent failure since 1998 to separate 
>the technical from the societal issues gets us into trouble. Attempting 
>to prevent nation-states from having their own policies on societal issues 
>is futile. Persuading them that MS stewardship of technical resources is 
>in everybody's best interests (including the interests of nation states 
>whose societal policies others might find abhorrent) is the best bet.

You articulate an interesting and coherent argument here, but I strongly disagree with it. 
My belief: if you concede that nation-states should have the power and the authority to impose "their own policies on [Internet-related] societal issues" then it is inevitable that MS stewardship of Internet technical resources will be gradually eliminated by governmental and intergovernmental control/stewardship. That is because (as I have explained repeatedly) governments will find that they can implement and enforce policies related to societal issues better if they control the technical administration. This is what happened with the monopolization of posts, telephones and telegraphs, and with control of radio spectrum. 

Here is the big irony of your position. Despite your negative comments about ITU and WSIS, your separation of "technical administration" from "societal and policy issues" is EXACTLY the same as the WSIS Tunis Agenda's attempt to define separate roles for governments and the private sector by assigning to governments the right to make policy and allowing the private sector control only over "day-to-day technical and operational matters." Do you mean to tell me that a former IAB chair is now a big support of the Tunis Agenda and its segregated roles approach to multistakeholder governance? If not, you need to rethink your position. 

Why does the Chinese Communist Party retain state ownership of the .CN ccTLD (and its Chinese-character equivalent? Is it because they don't trust the DNS experts in China to configure its name servers properly? No, it is because they know they will have more direct power over DNS users and a stronger ability to impose top-down policies if they control the infrastructure and operations that would be required to implement policy. In practice, the segregation of roles into "policy" and "technical" provides governments with a blank check to be in full control.