[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5

[Ben fuller]

Jorge,

There are two issues here, the first is how you establish an institution someplace where it is immune from government coercion. The examples I gave are just that examples, but they do reflect organisations that are somewhat removed from local government influence. I did say there are probably others. We can examine the ways these are structured to get some idea of what it takes to create a "denationalised" institution. 

The second point is how these institutions chose to run themselves: multi stakeholder, command driven, board of elders, etc. 

Ben
 
On Jan 24, 2014, at 12:31 PM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 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).
> 
> -J
> 
> 
> 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
> >>
> 

**********************************************
Dr. Ben Fuller
+264-61-224470  (O)    +264-88-63-68-05 (F)
ben at fuller.na             http://www.fuller.na
skype: drbenfuller
**********************************************