Thanks, Joy.  Yes, I think this is a principle that should be included.  Indeed it was part of the Internet's original design to have the power at the ends (rather than a centralized point) as a means of ensuring no single authority *could* shut it down.  This is one of the foremost principles for us to consider, I believe, when we evaluate various Internet-related policies.

Thanks,
Robin

On Dec 5, 2011, at 11:57 AM, Joy Liddicoat wrote:

> Hi:
> would some kind of openness and/or end to end principle be a good idea? For example: the Internet’s standards/protocols should remain open and/or the Internet’s functionality should rest at its endpoints not at any centralized point?
> Joy
>  
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Tuesday, 6 December 2011 3:51 a.m.
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: NCSG Policy Principles
>  
> Yes, I agree strongly with Maria here.
>  
> We should formulate a principle that Internet governance should remain flexible and decentralized whenever possible; call it a principle of "Internet subsidiarity," wherein hierarchical, centralized, collectively binding governance mechanisms should be minimized to those absolutely required to the Internet's value as an open system and the fundamental rights of its users.
>  
> And perhaps THAT should be the principle that prevails when there is conflict.
>  
> I would also like to see something expressing our philosophical support for the open, peer to peer nature of the Internet. Though maybe this isn't strictly within the purview of GNSO policy - I'm open to correction on that, though I think it's a good way to anchor our overall view.
>  
> All the best, Maria




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]