[bestbits] [governance] Re: NMI and the Brazilian CGI.br
bzs at world.std.com
Tue Dec 2 14:36:12 EST 2014
I would be more comfortable with this idea of "multistakeholder
governance" if I could understand its processes.
I did once ask for some references to read but did not get any
By processes I mean:
1. How does a group become a recognized stakeholder?
2. What is the deliberative body of stakeholders and what are its
3. How is conflict resolved? Only by vote? Simple majority?
4. Is there a multistakeholder notion of a judiciary? If so what are
its powers, membership, and basis for decision?
5. How are topics for deliberation, what might be called "bills",
introduced? How are competing and/or overlapping or redundant bills
resolved? Is there any filtering mechanism (committees) prior to their
introduction for full deliberation and vote? How are they structured?
6. How are representatives put forth by stakeholder groups chosen? By
whatever process the stakeholder group decides for itself? Is it
beyond the scope of the deliberative body to vet representatives? If
not then what minimum requirements exist? Could a recognized
multistakeholder group send a child or an international fugitive to
represent them? If not then by what process would that individual be
rejected as a representative?
6. Is there a designated executive whose function is to implement
policies agreed by this multistakeholder deliberative body? Does it
have any veto power? For example, in a case where a policy passed
proves unimplementable? And how is that decision contested?
7. How is budget managed both for the multistakeholder processes and
when intended for the larger community? Is there a process for
accounting? If so what controls does such an accounting process have
if a problem is detected? Send it back to the deliberative body?
Request the executive intervene and block further implementation until
problems are resolved? Appeal to some sort of judiciary?
8. By what process is a stakeholder group removed from participation
I could go on but I can't figure out if this is all just so
hypothetical that I've gotten far ahead of the discussion or I am
being thick-headed and this all should be obvious to me or there
actually is something substantive lacking when the word
"multistakeholder" is used.
If I've gotten far ahead of the discussion then am I also incorrect in
my understanding that decisions to implement a multistakeholder
structure for internet governance are imminent? For example, as a
structure to propose for the IANA transition in less than a year?
The World | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
-------------- next part --------------
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
For all other list information and functions, see:
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance