[discuss] Problem definition 1, version 5
jmamodio at gmail.com
Fri Jan 24 21:06:16 UTC 2014
I agree but I believe international organizations are more complex than just the agreement with a host country or location of incorporation, the "immunity" comes from multilateral agreements among state members.
There is another tangential issue, like in the case of ICANN, that by the way the organization has been incorporated, it is not quite true that it is a fully multistakeholder in how it runs, given that the board of directors have all decision power being the constituencies just advisory bodies. There is no true membership in
ICANN, so the organization per-se is not multistakeholder but the policy development process is.
If we want to make progress into the governance of ICANN and then its further internationalization we should also consider making the constituencies actual members of the organization regardless of the host country.
> On Jan 24, 2014, at 1:16 PM, Ben fuller <ben at fuller.na> wrote:
> 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.
More information about the discuss