[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5

Jorge Amodio jmamodio at gmail.com
Fri Jan 24 10:31:23 UTC 2014

Interesting question but some of the examples you mentioned are not even
close to be multi-stakeholder bottom-up organizations, such us UN, WB and
IMF, and I bet that they governance and agreements with a host countries
are based on many well documented multilateral agreements.

Regardless on which is the most appropriate/friendly "host" country I
believe the biggest challenge will be to make a strong argument for the
real need of such institution and for what.

I hardly believe that some governments will ever delegate their
representation to a third party.

As seen in WCIT12, the representatives of some countries can not even speak
or move a finger before following the ET Protocol (Phone Home).


On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Dr. Ben Fuller <ben at fuller.na> wrote:

> It would be useful to look at existing examples of international, non
> state institutions to see how they are governed and by whom, how their
> legal status is defined in the hosting country, their rights and powers for
> operation and so on. This will give some shape to discussions on how to
> establish a ‘de-nationalised’ institution.
> For example: In the US there is the United Nations, the World Bank, the
> IMF; in Geneva there is the ILO, World Council of Churches, IGF.  These
> might be good places to begin.
> Ben
> On Jan 23, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> > That may depend on your understanding of institutions. One could imagine
> governments delegating the task of participation to special agencies.
> >
> > I don't see governments participating as individual experts as Milton
> suggests. That would surely create problems of accountability for
> governments or their ministerial administrations. One of the specific
> features of governments is that they are, at least in theory, answerable to
> parliaments and, indirectly, to voters.
> >
> > As individual experts government delegates would count as civil society
> in my eyes.
> >
> > jeanette
> >
> > Am 23.01.2014 16:36, schrieb Avri Doria:
> >> +1
> >>
> >> On 23-Jan-14 04:53, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >>
> >>> Just for clarification: the new institutional framework would be
> neither
> >>> public nor private but something hybrid called multi-stakeholder that
> >>> includes governments?
> >>
> >>
> >> though I wonder is it 'governments [and, or] other governmental
> >> institutions.'
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140124/3bfe73d0/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list