<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><br><div><div>On 7 Jan 2014, at 8:12 pm, William Drake <<a href="mailto:wjdrake@gmail.com">wjdrake@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><br>On Jan 7, 2014, at 8:04 AM, David Cake <<a href="mailto:dave@DIFFERENCE.COM.AU">dave@DIFFERENCE.COM.AU</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br>On 4 Jan 2014, at 6:32 am, Milton L Mueller <<a href="mailto:mueller@SYR.EDU">mueller@SYR.EDU</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><br>-----Original Message-----<br><blockquote type="cite">The part of Brian's paper that I strongly agreed with is that the term for many<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>appears to be a catch-all for "anything related to the Internet about which I<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>feel strongly Something Should Be Done". I understood him to be arguing that<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>it's not an actionable category, and I agree with him. <br></blockquote><br>It's true that "Internet governance" becomes indistinguishable from "Internet policy" for many people, if one is not careful and allows it to happen. For those of us more familiar with policy debates, however, 'public policy' typically means _national_ policy. We also tend to qualify the term "Internet governance" with the modifier "global Internet governance" although admittedly often that is implicit. <br></blockquote><br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>I don't think that this distinction is quite as Milton describes, because there certainly exist some bodies that would generally be classified as Internet governance, rather than public policy, bodies, that operate only at the national level and are not global - multi-stakeholder ccTLD bodies, for example.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>But it is true that public policy is normally thought of as a national government led process, and Milton's distinction holds true most of the time.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br></blockquote><br>Now I�m puzzled too. To me public policy can be a form of governance��is US policy viz the root, IANA, ICANN, etc. not (global) IG?---or it may not be, e.g. stuff about applications of the net to particular functional problems, procurement, etc. that doesn�t establish generalizable principles, norms, rules, procedures, etc. affecting the net�s organization and use. It depends on the substantive matters at hand, so neither hard national/global or policy/governance binaries work. <br></div></blockquote></div><br><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Yes, hard boundaries do not work, and the terms public policy and Internet governance are certainly overlapping sets. </div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>But in the ways in which the terms are in common use within the general Internet governance world - I think most people would consider some of the more independent ccTLD authorities to be national level Internet governance institutions, while we might talk of a communications regulator (that may well attempt to regulate some Internet content at a national level, but not wider net organisation or use) as an Internet related public policy body.</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Cheers</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>David</div></body></html>