[governance] Consensus or rough consensus?

Mawaki Chango kichango at gmail.com
Wed May 21 05:19:19 EDT 2014 

Peut-etre qu'il nous faudra passer par les etats-generaux de la societe
civile globale/mondiale sur la gouvernance de l'internet???

Ian, the thing is I find it hard to reply yes or no to your question. Yes,
it may be better at least on some issues for governments to replace what
you call "UN consensus" by rough consensus (among themselves) for their
decision-making. But how to get to a place where we could apply rough
consensus among multiple stakeholders including governments at global level
and on "equal footing"? That's the challenge and that will require more
work, including maybe some level of constitution (literally and
"politically") for a global CS voice in the processes at hand.

Note that the above will require that within global CS itself, all members
(whether individuals or entities) are recognized on equal footing.
Thanks,

Mawaki

 -------
Mawaki Chango, PhD
Founder and Owner
DIGILEXIS
http://www.digilexis.com
Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis



On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
<suresh at hserus.net>wrote:

>   Fully agree with your problem statement. Now how can this be fixed?
>
> On 21 May 2014 12:14:28 pm "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is correct I think and a strategically important observation.
>> However, in order to be able to make effective use of these possible
>> strategic alliances/convergences CS has to be clear what it's stake/overall
>> strategic position is so that it can take tactical advantage where possible.
>>
>>
>>
>> For that to be effective/useful at all (from a CS rather than an
>> individualistic perspective) CS has to be clear in what its
>> linkages/alliances/representivity are (either from an organizational or
>> from a normative perspective).
>>
>>
>>
>> This is why CS has been very effective in promoting Human Rights in the
>> IG context but quite ineffective in other areas (in HR there was a clear
>> basis for establishing a normative representivity...
>>
>>
>>
>> It is also why to my mind MSism (rather than MSism within a democratic
>> framework) is so risky.  In the absence of those linkages back from CS
>> either to significant organizational or normative anchors then the role of
>> CS in MS processes is simply (CS) individuals acting more or less on their
>> own behalf.  They are thus subject to all the pressures, temptations etc.
>> that such a situation might present and unequally faced with organized
>> representations from other "stakeholders" .  The inevitable outcome from
>> this is that any negotiating environment is clearly fraught with potential
>> dysfunction and thus the likelihood of equitable overall outcomes is
>> significantly at risk.
>>
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Suresh
>> Ramasubramanian
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 21, 2014 6:51 AM
>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK
>> *Cc:* Mawaki Chango; Ian Peter
>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus?
>>
>>
>>
>> What stake does CS bring to the table - or rather, what stake do
>> individual CS representatives bring to the table?   Are they there solely
>> to demand a stake?  To put forth a purely political point of view? Or are
>> they there to genuinely represent the interests of the constituency they
>> serve?
>>
>>
>>
>> The answer will be that it depends.  The companies you name and others do
>> spend a lot on hiring public policy people to represent what they see as
>> their own interests.  Quite often though not always these interests may be
>> congruent with civil society - which is what helps in establishing a
>> consensus.
>>
>>
>> --srs (iPad)
>>
>>
>> On 21-May-2014, at 11:07, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian Wrote :
>>
>> < the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as
>> well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome.>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd rather add "who much they weigh in the information society" i.e. how
>> important is their lobbying influence and power on policy making. In more
>> concrete terms at which grade of representativeness will CS be able for
>> challenging effectively ("equal footing") the the private sector, i.e. the
>> "Internet Majors" Google, FB, Yahoo, M$, Amazon and Cos ?
>>
>>
>>
>> The answer is in the question ...
>>
>>
>>
>> Greetings
>>
>>
>>
>> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>>
>>
>>
>> > Message du 21/05/14 01:59
>> > De : "Mawaki Chango"
>> > A : "Internet Governance" , "Ian Peter"
>> > Copie à :
>> > Objet : Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus?
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Interesting perspective, Ian. My first thought is that like anything else
>> regarding MSm* the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and
>> organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome.
>> That is the Achilles' heel of any MSr process lies, IMO. The question is,
>> can we ever come up with basic principles that will be broadly accepted as
>> foundation for the legitimacy of MSm in some type of settings/contexts.
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> Sorry if I don't directly reply to your question.
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> Mawaki
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>> MSm = multistakeholderism
>>
>> MSr = multistakeholder
>>
>>
>> =================
>>
>> Mawaki Chango, PhD
>>
>> Founder and Owner
>>
>> DIGILEXIS
>>
>> http://www.digilexis.com
>> > Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> I'm interested to know people's thoughts about the advisability of civil
>> society promoting the "rough consensus" model of decision making as
>> differing from what I will call "UN consensus".
>>
>> "UN consensus" is what we see happening in most UN decision making
>> processes, some related international organisations, and also saw at
>> NetMundial. This consensus model allows any one party to stand against
>> adoption of any particular wording, even if the vast majority of parties
>> present think otherwise. This leads to some less acceptable outcomes.
>>
>> I think it is reasonable to say that "UN consensus" has been stifling in
>> many instances and has inhibited progress in many areas.
>>
>> Rough consensus could lead to different outcomes. For instance, in the
>> NetMundial situation, it would have led to the stronger statements on
>> surveillance, intermediate liability and net neutrality being maintained in
>> the text, rather than being removed at the last moment due to the demands
>> of a small number of government and business interests.
>>
>> In other words, in this example at least, the mood of the meeting and the
>> desires of the vast majority of participants would have been better
>> reflected with a rough consensus decision making mechanism than with UN
>> style consensus.
>>
>> However, there is a danger here - minorities are not necessarily
>> protected in rough consensus and more widespread adoption of a rough
>> consensus decision making model could lead to suppression of some
>> viewpoints. However, in a stakeholder model such as NetMundial needing
>> rough consensus in all stakeholder groups would offer significant
>> protection.
>>
>>  So I am interested in any thoughts on the best model for us to promote
>> here.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>> >
>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>> >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> >      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>> >
>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140521/37a421ec/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list