[discuss] surveillance governance, was Re: [governance] NTIA statement

"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
Tue Mar 18 09:58:05 UTC 2014

In the circumstances, we need a standing global mechanism where such discussions of Internet related social issues (the top layer in Vint Cerf's paper) could take place, and appropriate measures begun to be shaped; which would of course eventually involve a lot of different actors . The biggest existing global Internet governance issue or problem is the absence of any such standing global forum or mechanism. 

Mechanisms should emerge on the basis of concrete needs and identified gaps. The first thing you have to do is to define the issues which have no existing natural home. Many public policy related Internet issues have a natural home. There are about 50 governmental and non-governmental global organisations dealing with various Internet related issues: From UN bodies like the Human Rights Concil to the I*Organisations. To find out what the missing link is and where we have a gap (or a malfunction) we need first of all  something like a Multistakeholder Internet Governance Clearing House (I have called this MIPOG / Multistakeholder Internet Policy Group). If a stakeholder, including a national government, has a problem, it could go to MIPOG with a request and MIPOG would recommend how to move forward by delegating the request to an existing  mechanism or by launching a (multistakeholder) process in a bottom up, inclusive, open and transparent way to develop policies (as an RFC) which could, if needed, also include the launch of new multistakeholder mechanisms. 

More information about the discuss mailing list