<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">On Nov 6, 2013, at 2:47 PM, parminder <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>> wrote:<br><div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 07 November 2013 01:06 AM,
John Curran wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Parminder -
For my education - where is the distinction made in the Tunis agenda?</pre></blockquote>
John<br>
<br>
The para 69 of Tunis Agenda and I quote<br>
<br>
<font face="Verdana" size="2"><font face="Verdana" size="2">"69. We
further recognize<span style="font-weight: 400">
the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable
governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and
responsibilities, in international public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day
technical and operational matters, that do not impact on
international public policy issues. </span></font></font>"<br>
<br>
This para explicitly excludes all elements of global Internet
governance that pertains to technical operations and do not impact
international public policy issues. Therefore RIR, IETF, ICANN and
such of the I* group remain 'safe' and excluded from enhanced
cooperation discussions and any ' institutional solutions' that may
emerge out of them. </div></blockquote><div><br></div>Thanks for the reminder.</div><div><br></div><div>So on the question of terminology - </div><div><blockquote cite="mid:E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org" type="cite"><pre wrap=""></pre></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote cite="mid:E9E0FAA8-3772-4868-A035-05B3E6BA3754@istaff.org" type="cite"><pre wrap="">Do we have commonly accepted terminology for referring to "Internet
substantive public polices" vs "Internet operational matters"?</pre></blockquote></blockquote></div><div>these are "Internet _public policy_ issues", as opposed to "Internet policy development issues"...</div><div><br></div><div>Are we all using the phrase "Internet public policy" consistently, when referring to matters of </div><div>norms and customs on the Internet? (e.g. there are likely aspects of globalization of ICANN</div><div>and IANA which pose Internet public policy issues, and others aspects which are operational</div><div>matters)</div><div><br></div><div>/John</div><div><br></div><div>Disclaimers: My views alone. No public policy proposed in this email.</div><br></body></html>