<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">
<p>Fully agree with your problem statement. Now how can this be fixed? </p>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">
<p style="margin: 10pt 0; color: black;">On 21 May 2014 12:14:28 pm
"michael gurstein" <gurstein@gmail.com> wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_quote"
style="margin: 0 0 0 0.75ex; border-left: 1px solid #808080; padding-left: 0.75ex;"><div
class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>M<o:p></o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div
style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in
0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Suresh
Ramasubramanian<br><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, May 21, 2014 6:51
AM<br><b>To:</b> governance@lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Louis
FULLSACK<br><b>Cc:</b> Mawaki Chango; Ian Peter<br><b>Subject:</b> Re:
[governance] Consensus or rough
consensus?<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>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?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br>--srs
(iPad)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal
style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>On 21-May-2014, at 11:07, Jean-Louis
FULLSACK <<a
href="mailto:jlfullsack@orange.fr">jlfullsack@orange.fr</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote
style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p>Dear
all<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>Ian Wrote
:<o:p></o:p></p><p>< the devil will be in how MSr* are defined,
structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process
and outcome.><o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>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
?<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>The answer is in the question
...<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p>Greetings<o:p></o:p></p><p> <o:p></o:p></p><p
style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Jean-Louis
Fullsack<br><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote
style='border:none;border-left:solid red 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
4.0pt;margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><p
class=MsoNormal>> Message du 21/05/14 01:59<br>> De : "Mawaki
Chango" <br>> A : "Internet Governance" , "Ian
Peter" <br>> Copie à : <br>> Objet : Re: [governance] Consensus
or rough consensus?<br>> <br>> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p
class=MsoNormal>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. <o:p></o:p></p><div><p
class=MsoNormal><br>><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Sorry
if I don't directly reply to your question.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal><br>><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Mawaki
<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal><br>><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>MSm =
multistakeholderism<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>MSr =
multistakeholder<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br
clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#500050'>=================<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p
class=MsoNormal>Mawaki Chango, PhD<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal>Founder and Owner<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal>DIGILEXIS<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p
class=MsoNormal><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:#222222'><a
href="http://www.digilexis.com/" target="_blank"><span
style='color:#1155CC'>http://www.digilexis.com</span></a> <br>>
Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis
& @pro_digilexis<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><div><p
class=MsoNormal><br>><o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div><p
class=MsoNormal><br>> <br>> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>On
Tue, May 20, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Ian Peter <<a
href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com"
target="_blank">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>> wrote:<br>>
<o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal
style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>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”.</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p
class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>“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.</span><span
style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal
style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>I think it is reasonable to say that
“UN consensus” has been stifling in many instances and has inhibited
progress in many areas. </span><span
style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal
style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>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. </span><span
style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal
style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>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.</span><span
style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal
style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'>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.</span><span
style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal
style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span
style='font-size:11.0pt;color:black'> So I am interested in any
thoughts on the best model for us to promote here.</span><span
style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal
style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span
style='color:black'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal
style='margin-bottom:10.0pt;line-height:13.0pt'><span
style='color:black'>Ian Peter<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><p
class=MsoNormal><br>>
____________________________________________________________<br>> You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>>
<a
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>> <a
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>> <br>>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>>
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>> To
edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>>
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>> <br>> Translate
this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>>
<br>><o:p></o:p></p></div><p
class=MsoNormal><br>><o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal
style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br><br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You
received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br> <a
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To
be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For
all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To
edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter,
see:<br> <a
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate
this email: <a
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></blockquote><blockquote
style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p
class=MsoNormal>____________________________________________________________<br>You
received this message as a subscriber on the
list:<br> <a
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>To
be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For
all other list information and functions,
see:<br> <a
href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>To
edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter,
see:<br> <a
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate
this email: <a
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>