[governance] Consensus LIMITATIONS
Thomas Lowenhaupt
toml at communisphere.com
Thu May 22 14:36:24 EDT 2014
An article in today's New York Times
<http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/geithner-book-reveals-consensus-not-vision-during-financial-crisis/>
reviewing a book by former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is headlined
"Geithner Depicts Consensus in Crisis, Not Vision." Focusing on
consensus one paragraph states a key failure of the Obama Administration:
"It’s an elevation of consensus, rather than what’s right, as a mode
of governance. And there are moments that call for vision and ambition."
I read the review as saying that consensus, at best, is Milquetoast.
Best,
Tom Lowenhaupt
On 5/21/2014 5:19 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote:
> Peut-etre qu'il nous faudra passer par les etats-generaux de la
> societe civile globale/mondiale sur la gouvernance de l'internet???
>
> Ian, the thing is I find it hard to reply yes or no to your question.
> Yes, it may be better at least on some issues for governments to
> replace what you call "UN consensus" by rough consensus (among
> themselves) for their decision-making. But how to get to a place where
> we could apply rough consensus among multiple stakeholders including
> governments at global level and on "equal footing"? That's the
> challenge and that will require more work, including maybe some level
> of constitution (literally and "politically") for a global CS voice in
> the processes at hand.
>
> Note that the above will require that within global CS itself, all
> members (whether individuals or entities) are recognized on equal footing.
> Thanks,
>
> Mawaki
>
> -------
> Mawaki Chango, PhD
> Founder and Owner
> DIGILEXIS
> http://www.digilexis.com <http://www.digilexis.com/>
> Skype: digilexis | Twitter: @digilexis & @pro_digilexis
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 7:01 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian
> <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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>
>> [mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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/20140522/bef70640/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