[governance] Consensus or rough consensus?

Suresh Ramasubramanian suresh at hserus.net
Wed May 21 03:01:18 EDT 2014 

Fully agree with your problem statement. Now how can this be fixed?


On 21 May 2014 12:14:28 pm "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20140521/6fd57003/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

More information about the Governance mailing list