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

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

It seems difficult for that not to end up in a gatekeeper capacity. 

Perhaps it would be easier to agree that there needs to be a shared portal with information on who does what in matters internet: where are standards developed, how, how to get involved in the various institutions, what do they do, etc. This could then have a policy side to it where again, a comprehensive, factual and neutral recitation of what discussions with an Internet dimension are taking place where, why and how to participate.

That would, I think, have a major value-add if it were trusted, impartial, and complete. 

On 18 Mar 2014, at 17:23, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> 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. 
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> 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:
> 	
> 	http://bestbits.net/netmundial-roadmap/
> 	
> 	--
> 	Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
> 	Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
> 	host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org<http://5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org/> |awk -F! '{print $3}'
> 	
> 	WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, seehttp://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/> 
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140318/30860159/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140318/30860159/signature-0001.asc>