[governance] Industrial Progress, revisited…

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<CAOLD2+bFvkxG_+5wmrAuHAmqEgTp_TOk6rPXR8QR-F0soiLRQw at mail.gmail.com>, at 
07:15:49 on Sun, 19 May 2013, Andrea Glorioso <andrea at digitalpolicy.it> 
writes
>> Those of us who participate in the BUTOC (Bottom Up, Transparent,
>> Open, Consensus) based processes of IG.
>
>So is being BUTOC a necessary condition for a process to be 
>multi-stakeholder? Is it also a sufficient condition?

It is certainly not sufficient. I can think of BUTOC processes which 
have a very narrow range of stakeholders involved. Sometimes these 
process will protest that other stakeholders are welcome, should they 
choose to become involved; but in their absence I don't think the 
process can *be* multistakeholder.

Similarly, a multi-stakeholder process can also be top-down; if for 
example each stakeholder group votes-in representatives to a 
committee[1] of some kind, who then go on to take all the decisions 
without any further consultation with their constituencies.

[1] Or Board, Council, Bureau etc. Many words for much the same thing.
-- 
Roland Perry

-------------- 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