[governance] Consensus or rough consensus?

[Mawaki Chango]

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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140520/340f98b5/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