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

"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
Tue Mar 18 16:23:56 UTC 2014

Hi Alex,
MIPOC would not be a "global authority for permission" but a (highly qualified multistakeholder) "service point" which helps to clarify what can be done with controversial issues. Something like the WGIG. 


Von: Alejandro Pisanty [mailto:apisanty at gmail.com]
Gesendet: Di 18.03.2014 16:24
An: Jeremy Malcolm
Cc: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; parminder; discuss at 1net.org
Betreff: Re: [discuss] surveillance governance, was Re: [governance] NTIA statement


that is not the way the Internet's successful multistakeholder governance mechanisms have emerged - no need to ask for a higher, central, global authority for permission. In fact, the pieces of it that exist had to be circumvented in order to get the Internet to expand. The top-down authorization echoes the delusion of One World Government and is the major flaw of the MIPOG idea. 

Alejandro Pisanty

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote:

	On 18 Mar 2014, at 5:58 pm, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at MEDIENKOMM.UNI-HALLE.DE> wrote:
	> 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.
	That is also essentially what the submission posted through Best Bits calls for:
	Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
	Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
	host -t NAPTR <> |awk -F! '{print $3}'
	WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com <http://pisanty.blogspot.com/> 
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/> 
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 

More information about the discuss mailing list