Mass Online Deliberation in Participatory Policy-Making—Part II

Mechanisms and Procedures
  • Cyril VelikanovEmail author
  • Alexander Prosser
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 25)


In this Part II of the present Chapter, we describe the stages (or phases), mechanisms and procedures of a MOD process, in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section “ MOD Paradigm Versus Deliberative Polling” of Part I. Our task is to provide an MOD blueprint for an ICT-based MOD platform that almost immediately lends itself to system implementation. As in Part I, we use the neologism deliberandum to refer to a given instance of mass online deliberation, that is, to a process of deliberating online within a given community, on a given issue, and within a given period of time.


Quality Grade Weighted Vote Deliberation Process Editing Group Argumentative Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Iandoli L, Klein M, Zollo G (2009) Enabling On-Line Deliberation and Collective Decision-Making through Large-Scale Argumentation: A New Approach to the Design of an Internet-Based Mass Collaboration Platform. International Journal of Decision Support System Technology 1(1): 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. McBurney, P., Hitchcock, D., Parsons, S. (2007). The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22(1): 95–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Noble, D., & Rittel, H.W.J. (1988). Issue-Based Information Systems for Design. Proceedings of the ACADIA `88 Conference, Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  4. Speroni di Fenizio, P. and Velikanov, C. (2011). System Generated Requests for Rewriting Proposals. Presentation at the ePart 2011 conference, retreived at
  5. Stodolsky D.S. (2002). Computer-network based democracy: Scientific communication as a basis for governance. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Knowledge Management in e-Government, 7, 127–137.Google Scholar
  6. Velikanov C. (2010a) Mutual Moderation and Appraisal of Contributions in eParticipation. Proceedings of the eDem 2010 Conference, Austrian Computer Society. Google Scholar
  7. Velikanov C. (2010b) Requirements and tools for an efficient eParticipation. Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Online (DG.O 2010), Puebla, Mexico, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Digital Government Society of North America. Google Scholar
  8. Velikanov C. (2010c) Procedures and Methods for Cross-community Online Deliberation. JeDem, Vol.2 No.2. eJournal of eDemocracy & Open Government, Danube University Krems. Google Scholar
  9. Velikanov C. (2010d). Weighted Voting in eParticipation. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Legal Information Systems (IRIS 2010). Salzburg. Austrian Computer Society, Vienna. Google Scholar
  10. Walton, D., Reed, C., Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  11. Werner, Kunz and Rittel, Horst, Issues as Elements of Information Systems. (1970). Working paper No. 131, Studiengruppe für Systemforschung, Heidelberg, Germany, 1970 (Reprinted May 1979). Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Memorial SocietyMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Department of Informations Systems and OperationsWU Wien, Vienna University of Economics and BusinessViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations