[governance] Consensus or rough consensus?

Wed May 21 02:44:18 EDT 2014

This is correct I think and a strategically important observation.  However, in order to be able to make effective use of these possible strategic alliances/convergences CS has to be clear what it’s stake/overall strategic position is so that it can take tactical advantage where possible.

For that to be effective/useful at all (from a CS rather than an individualistic perspective) CS has to be clear in what its linkages/alliances/representivity are (either from an organizational or from a normative perspective).  

This is why CS has been very effective in promoting Human Rights in the IG context but quite ineffective in other areas (in HR there was a clear basis for establishing a normative representivity…

It is also why to my mind MSism (rather than MSism within a democratic framework) is so risky.  In the absence of those linkages back from CS either to significant organizational or normative anchors then the role of CS in MS processes is simply (CS) individuals acting more or less on their own behalf.  They are thus subject to all the pressures, temptations etc. that such a situation might present and unequally faced with organized representations from other “stakeholders” .  The inevitable outcome from this is that any negotiating environment is clearly fraught with potential dysfunction and thus the likelihood of equitable overall outcomes is significantly at risk.

M

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 6:51 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jean-Louis FULLSACK
Cc: Mawaki Chango; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus or rough consensus?

What stake does CS bring to the table - or rather, what stake do individual CS representatives bring to the table?   Are they there solely to demand a stake?  To put forth a purely political point of view? Or are they there to genuinely represent the interests of the constituency they serve?

The answer will be that it depends.  The companies you name and others do spend a lot on hiring public policy people to represent what they see as their own interests.  Quite often though not always these interests may be congruent with civil society - which is what helps in establishing a consensus.

--srs (iPad)

On 21-May-2014, at 11:07, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> wrote:

Dear all

Ian Wrote :

< the devil will be in how MSr* are defined, structured and organized as well as how their voice factors in the process and outcome.>

I'd rather add "who much they weigh in the information society" i.e. how important is their lobbying influence and power on policy making. In more concrete terms at which grade of representativeness will CS be able for challenging effectively ("equal footing") the the private sector, i.e. the "Internet Majors" Google, FB, Yahoo, M$, Amazon and Cos ?

The answer is in the question ...

Greetings

Jean-Louis Fullsack

> Message du 21/05/14 01:59
> De : "Mawaki Chango" 
> A : "Internet Governance" , "Ian Peter" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : 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/> 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

____________________________________________________________
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/20140521/17c7cc64/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