[governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)

Dan Krimm dan at musicunbound.com
Sat Jun 2 03:04:31 EDT 2007

At 8:46 AM +0800 6/2/07, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

>True it is that consensus will often not be achieved.  But that is not
>to be regarded as a failure of the process.  Making decisions is only
>part of what consensus is about, and in some contexts a small part.

I can see how this would apply in the context of IGF at this early stage,
however there are cases where a venue takes on an apparent jurisdiction to
make decisions in an increasingly expanding policy domain but then seeks to
use a consensus process (such as ICANN), and in such cases a
"consensus-based decision" may often be the result of a process that is
"forced" at best.

That said, IGF may well be a venue where consensus is an important and
valuable process of evaluation.  But as soon as IGF seeks to make
*decisions* regarding public policy or engage in actual "Internet
governance" itself, I believe it will run into problems if it tries to
extend a unilateral consensus model.  So it may make sense to prepare for
the extension of decision-making to governance venues with more accountable
processes of representation, or to incorporate representational processes
in its own decision-making paradigm (on a treaty-making model?).

And with that, I think I should recuse from further comment regarding IGF
as I am not directly involved in the process.  Please excuse the brief
imposition from an outsider.  Couldn't help but respond to some theoretical
concepts that didn't quite seem to add up, and I hope this has helped
clarify the concepts in the discussion.

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:

More information about the Governance mailing list