[governance] Consensus or rough consensus?

[Ian Peter]

Hi Mawaki,

> 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. 

I think Net Mundial made a good but imperfect attempt at this.

But equally, is there any way with MSism we can improve on the serious problems that exist with UN system?  There are countless examples within current international systems of nation state votes being bought by promises of increased foreign aid etc, and of nation state positions being determined by corporate interests. So we already have a system which is quite flawed, and  is stifled whenever it attempts to make any change that affects the status quo. My question is can we improve on it?

I don ‘t yet see how any system or systemic change is going to completely stop powerful interests dictating policy to less powerful ones. However, I am wondering whether rough consensus is going to be useful or dangerous in this context.

Ian







From: Mawaki Chango 
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 9:58 AM
To: Internet Governance ; Ian Peter 
Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus?

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





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
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/20140521/47d5e915/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