KTP-Governance: Governance Specification

Status: Experimental

This document defines the governance layer of KTP, including zone charters, the recursive constraint principle, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

At a Glance

Property	Value
Status	Experimental
Version	0.1
Dependencies	KTP-Core, KTP-Federation
Required By	KTP-Audit, KTP-Conformance

---

The Recursive Constraint

The fundamental innovation of KTP governance is that it is not outside the system. Governors are agents within the system, subject to the same physics as the agents they govern.

\[ A_{governor} \leq E_{governor} \]

Where: - \(A_{governor}\) is the autonomy cost of a governance action (e.g., changing a parameter). - \(E_{governor}\) is the governor's environmental stability (Trust Score).

This prevents "God Mode" administration where operators can bypass safety constraints. To change the physics, a governor must have sufficient trust within the physics.

Governance Action Costs

Action	Autonomy Cost (\(A\))	Requirement
View Metrics	5	Basic Access
Modify Tier Boundaries	25	Analyst Trust
Adjust Agent \(E_{base}\)	35	Operator Trust
Adjust Zone \(E_{base}\)	60	High Trust
Modify Gravity Parameters	70	Very High Trust
Change Governance Structure	80	Council Consensus
Zone Dissolution	95	Maximum Trust

---

Governance Models

KTP supports multiple governance structures depending on the zone's needs.

Model 1: Sole Proprietor

Simple, single-entity control. Best for private or experimental zones.

graph TD
    G[Governor] -->|Sets E_base| Z[Zone]
    G -->|Resolves Disputes| Z
    style G fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px

Model 2: Governance Council

Distributed decision-making via M-of-N voting. Best for production zones.

graph TD
    G1[Governor 1] --> V[Council Voting]
    G2[Governor 2] --> V
    G3[Governor 3] --> V
    G4[Governor 4] --> V
    G5[Governor 5] --> V

    V -->|M-of-N Consensus| Z[Zone]

    style V fill:#bbf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px

Model 3: Delegated Governance

Layered authority for large organizations.

graph TD
    CC[Charter Council] -->|Delegates| OB[Operations Board]
    OB -->|Delegates| ZO[Zone Operators]
    ZO -->|Manages| Z[Zone]

    subgraph Constitutional
    CC
    end

    subgraph Operational
    OB
    end

    subgraph Technical
    ZO
    end

Model 4: Federated Governance

Shared governance across multiple zones.

graph LR
    ZA[Zone A Gov] <-->|Coordination| ZB[Zone B Gov]
    ZA --> ZZoneA[Zone A]
    ZB --> ZZoneB[Zone B]

    ZZoneA <-->|Trust| ZZoneB

    FC[Federation Council] -.->|Standards & Arbitration| ZA
    FC -.->|Standards & Arbitration| ZB

---

E-Setting Authority

The power to set \(E_{base}\) is the power to determine the reality of the zone. This authority is tiered to prevent abuse.

Level	Scope	Typical Authority	Constraints
Zone	Zone-wide \(E_{base}\)	Charter Council	Max change 10/week, Audit required
Tier	Tier-specific limits	Governance Council	Consensus required
Agent	Individual \(E_{base}\)	Zone Operators	Cannot exceed Zone Max
Emergency	Temporary reduction	Any Governor	Max 24h duration, Post-hoc review

Emergency E-Reduction Process

In a crisis, any governor can "pull the brake" (reduce \(E\)), but restoring it requires consensus.

sequenceDiagram
    participant Gov as Governor
    participant Sys as System
    participant Council as Governance Council

    Gov->>Sys: Emergency E-Reduction (Reason: Attack)
    Sys->>Sys: Apply Reduction (E_base = E_base * 0.5)
    Sys-->>Gov: Confirmed (Duration: 4h)

    Note over Sys: Zone enters Defensive Mode

    Council->>Sys: Review Incident
    Council->>Sys: Authorize Restoration
    Sys->>Sys: Restore E_base

---

Dispute Resolution

When physics is not enough, human judgment is required.

1. Agent vs. Zone: Agent disputes a governance decision.
2. Governor vs. Governor: Disagreement within the council.
3. Zone vs. Zone: Cross-zone trust issues.

Federation Arbitration Flow

graph TD
    Start[Dispute Filed] --> Investigate[Investigation Phase]
    Investigate --> Deliberate[Council Deliberation]
    Deliberate --> Decision{Decision Reached?}

    Decision -->|Yes| Ruling[Issue Ruling]
    Decision -->|No| Escalate[Federation Arbitration]

    Escalate --> ArbHearing[Arbitration Hearing]
    ArbHearing --> BindingRuling[Binding Ruling]

    Ruling --> Implement[Implementation]
    BindingRuling --> Implement

---

Related Specifications

Related Specifications

• KTP-Core: Trust physics and enforcement baseline.
• KTP-Identity: Agent lineage and accountability.
• KTP-Crypto: Signature schemes and key custody.
• KTP-Transport: Proof propagation across networks.

---

Official RFC Document

View Complete RFC Text (ktp-governance.txt)

Kinetic Trust Protocol                                      C. Perkins
Specification Draft                                           NMCITRA
Version: 0.1                                             November 2025


       Kinetic Trust Protocol (KTP) - Governance Specification

Abstract

   This document specifies governance structures for the Kinetic Trust
   Protocol (KTP).  Governance addresses fundamental questions: Who sets
   E_base for zones?  Who can modify the physics?  How are disputes
   resolved?  What accountability exists for zone operators?  The
   specification covers zone governance models, the recursive constraint
   (physics applies to governors), E-setting authority, dispute
   resolution, federation governance, and governance evolution.

Status of This Memo

   This document specifies a Kinetic Trust Protocol specification for
   the Internet community, defining governance structures and procedures
   for KTP zones.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2025 NMCITRA.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to the Kinetic Trust Protocol licensing
   terms.  Please review the LICENSE file for complete terms.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       1.1.  The Governance Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
       1.2.  Design Principles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Requirements Language  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   3.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   4.  The Recursive Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.1.  Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.2.  Why Recursion Matters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.3.  Governor Autonomy Calculation  . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
       4.4.  Governor E_base  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   5.  Zone Governance Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.1.  Model 1: Sole Proprietor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       5.2.  Model 2: Governance Council  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.3.  Model 3: Delegated Governance  . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       5.4.  Model 4: Federated Governance  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   6.  Zone Charter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.1.  Purpose  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.2.  Required Elements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       6.3.  Charter Immutability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   7.  E-Setting Authority  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.1.  The Authority Problem  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.2.  Authority Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.3.  Authority Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       7.4.  E-Setting Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
       7.5.  Emergency E Reduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   8.  Dispute Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       8.1.  Dispute Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       8.2.  Zone-Level Dispute Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
       8.3.  Federation Arbitration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   9.  Accountability Mechanisms  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       9.1.  Governor Accountability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
       9.2.  Audit Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
       9.3.  Governor Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   10. Federation Governance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       10.1. Federation Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
       10.2. Federation Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   11. Meta-Governance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       11.1. Changing the Governance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       11.2. Amendment Process  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
       11.3. Amendment Constraints  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   12. Transparency Requirements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       12.1. Public Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
       12.2. Logging Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
   13. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       13.1. Governance Attack Vectors  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
       13.2. Governance Continuity  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   14. IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Appendix A.  Sample Zone Charters  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Appendix B.  Governance Decision Templates . . . . . . . . . . .  19
   Appendix C.  Audit Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

1.  Introduction

   Digital Gravity is physics, not policy.  But physics has parameters
   -- and someone must set them.

   This specification addresses the governance layer of KTP: the human
   and organizational structures that configure, operate, and oversee
   zones.  Unlike the technical specifications, governance involves
   politics, values, and power.  We cannot pretend otherwise.

1.1.  The Governance Paradox

   KTP exists because we don't trust AI systems to govern themselves.
   But humans who govern AI systems are themselves fallible:

   -  Corruptible by incentives

   -  Limited in attention and expertise

   -  Capable of abuse

   -  Subject to their own biases

   The solution is not to trust governors implicitly, but to constrain
   them by the same physics they administer.

1.2.  Design Principles

   Governance embodies these principles:

   1.  Recursive Constraint: The physics applies to everyone, including
       those who set the physics.

   2.  Minimal Authority: Governors have only the authority necessary
       for their function.

   3.  Transparency: Governance actions are visible and auditable.

   4.  Accountability: Governors face consequences for abuse.

   5.  Evolution: Governance can change, but changes are constrained.

   6.  Federation: No single entity governs all zones.

2.  Requirements Language

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 (RFC 2119 and
   RFC 8174).

3.  Terminology

   E-Setting Authority:  The power to determine a zone's base
      environmental stability.

   Governance Council:  A body with collective authority over zone
      governance.

   Governor:  An entity with governance authority over a zone.

   Meta-Governance:  Governance of the governance system itself.

   Recursive Constraint:  The principle that physics applies to
      governors themselves.

   Zone Charter:  The foundational document defining zone governance.

   Zone Operator:  The entity responsible for zone technical operations.

4.  The Recursive Constraint

4.1.  Definition

   The recursive constraint is the fundamental governance principle:

      Governors are subject to KTP physics.

   Governor actions have autonomy (A):

   -  A = autonomy_requested(governance_action)

   Governors have environmental stability (E):

   -  E = E_base * (1 - R)

   -  Where R reflects governance context risk

   The Zeroth Law applies:

   -  A_governor <= E_governor

   Violations trigger consequences.

4.2.  Why Recursion Matters

   Without recursive constraint:

   -  Governors could exempt themselves from physics

   -  Power would concentrate without check

   -  The system would collapse to policy (human-speed, evadable)

   With recursive constraint:

   -  Governors experience the physics they administer

   -  Abuse is constrained by the same mechanisms

   -  Trust in governance is itself earned

4.3.  Governor Autonomy Calculation

   Governance actions have autonomy costs:

      +-----------------------------+----------------------+
      | Action                      | Base Autonomy (A)    |
      +-----------------------------+----------------------+
      | Modify tier boundaries      | 25                   |
      | Adjust E_base for agent     | 35                   |
      | Adjust zone E_base          | 60                   |
      | Modify gravity parameters   | 70                   |
      | Change governance structure | 80                   |
      | Zone dissolution            | 95                   |
      +-----------------------------+----------------------+

4.4.  Governor E_base

   Governors earn E_base through governance trajectory:

   {
     "governor_trajectory": {
       "governor_id": "gov:alice.smith",
       "governance_history": {
         "zones_governed": 3,
         "decisions_made": 1247,
         "decisions_upheld": 1189,
         "decisions_overturned": 58,
         "disputes_against": 12,
         "disputes_lost": 2
       },
       "e_base": 72,
       "accountability_record": {
         "audits_passed": 8,
         "violations": 0,
         "sanctions": 0
       }
     }
   }

5.  Zone Governance Models

5.1.  Model 1: Sole Proprietor

   Single entity governs zone:

      +------------------+
      |    Governor      |
      |  (single entity) |
      +------------------+
              |
              v
      +------------------+
      |      Zone        |
      +------------------+

   Characteristics:

   -  Simple decision-making

   -  Clear accountability

   -  Single point of failure

   -  Limited checks on abuse

   Appropriate for:

   -  Small zones

   -  Experimental zones

   -  Private organizational zones

5.2.  Model 2: Governance Council

   Multiple entities share governance:

      +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
      | G1  | G2  | G3  | G4  | G5  |
      +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
                    |
                    v
          +------------------+
          |  Council Voting  |
          |  (M-of-N)        |
          +------------------+
                    |
                    v
          +------------------+
          |      Zone        |
          +------------------+

   Characteristics:

   -  Distributed decision-making

   -  Multiple perspectives

   -  Slower changes

   -  Built-in checks

   Appropriate for:

   -  Production zones

   -  Multi-stakeholder zones

   -  Public-facing zones

5.3.  Model 3: Delegated Governance

   Layered governance with delegation:

      +------------------+
      |  Charter Council |
      |  (constitutional)|
      +------------------+
              |
              | delegates
              v
      +------------------+
      | Operations Board |
      |  (operational)   |
      +------------------+
              |
              | delegates
              v
      +------------------+
      | Zone Operators   |
      |  (technical)     |
      +------------------+
              |
              v
      +------------------+
      |      Zone        |
      +------------------+

   Characteristics:

   -  Separation of concerns

   -  Appropriate expertise at each level

   -  Complex accountability

   -  Suitable for large zones

   Appropriate for:

   -  Large public zones

   -  Regulated industries

   -  Critical infrastructure

5.4.  Model 4: Federated Governance

   Governance shared across federation:

      +------------------+     +------------------+
      |   Zone A Gov     |<--->|   Zone B Gov     |
      +------------------+     +------------------+
              |                         |
              v                         v
      +------------------+     +------------------+
      |     Zone A       |<--->|     Zone B       |
      +------------------+     +------------------+
               \                       /
                v                     v
              +------------------+
              | Federation       |
              | Council          |
              +------------------+

   Characteristics:

   -  Shared standards

   -  Mutual accountability

   -  Complex coordination

   -  No single authority

   Appropriate for:

   -  Multi-zone deployments

   -  Cross-organizational zones

   -  Global infrastructure

6.  Zone Charter

6.1.  Purpose

   The Zone Charter is the foundational governance document:

   -  Defines governance structure

   -  Specifies E-setting authority

   -  Establishes accountability mechanisms

   -  Sets amendment procedures

   -  Binds all zone participants

6.2.  Required Elements

   Every Zone Charter MUST include:

   zone_charter:
     zone_id: "zone-blue-prod-01"
     charter_version: "1.0.0"
     effective_date: "2025-01-01T00:00:00Z"

     governance_model:
       type: "council"
       council_size: 5
       quorum: 3
       voting_threshold: 0.6

     e_setting_authority:
       zone_e_base:
         authority: "council_supermajority"
         threshold: 0.8
       agent_e_base:
         authority: "council_majority"
         threshold: 0.6
       emergency_e_reduction:
         authority: "any_governor"
         threshold: null

     accountability:
       audit_frequency: "quarterly"
       external_auditor: true
       transparency_level: "public"
       dispute_process: "federation_arbitration"

     amendment:
       proposal_threshold: 0.4
       approval_threshold: 0.8
       notice_period_days: 30
       ratification_period_days: 14

     constraints:
       recursive_constraint: true
       governor_e_base_min: 50
       governor_e_base_max: 90

     signatories:
       - governor_id: "gov:alice.smith"
         signature: "sig:..."
         date: "2025-01-01T00:00:00Z"

6.3.  Charter Immutability

   Certain charter elements MUST NOT be modified:

   -  Recursive constraint (always enabled)

   -  Minimum governor E_base

   -  Requirement for amendment process

   -  Dispute resolution process existence

   These are constitutional constraints that protect the physics.

7.  E-Setting Authority

7.1.  The Authority Problem

   E_base determines how much autonomy agents can have.  Whoever sets
   E_base has enormous power:

   -  Too low: Agents are crippled, zone is useless

   -  Too high: Agents are unconstrained, zone is dangerous

   -  Inconsistent: Trust becomes meaningless

7.2.  Authority Levels

   E-setting authority is tiered:

      +-----------+------------------------+---------------------+
      | Level     | Scope                  | Typical Authority   |
      +-----------+------------------------+---------------------+
      | Tier      | Tier-specific E_base   | Governance Council  |
      | Agent     | Individual E_base      | Zone Operators      |
      | Emergency | Temporary E reduction  | Any Governor        |
      +-----------+------------------------+---------------------+

7.3.  Authority Constraints

   E-setting authority is itself constrained:

   {
     "e_setting_constraints": {
       "zone_e_base": {
         "min": 20,
         "max": 80,
         "change_max_per_period": 10,
         "change_period_days": 7,
         "requires_audit": true
       },
       "agent_e_base": {
         "min": 5,
         "max": "zone_e_base",
         "change_max_per_period": 15,
         "change_period_days": 1,
         "requires_audit": false
       },
       "emergency_reduction": {
         "max_reduction": 50,
         "max_duration_hours": 24,
         "requires_post_hoc_review": true
       }
     }
   }

7.4.  E-Setting Process

   Normal E_base modification:

   1.  Proposal submitted

       -  Proposed new E_base

       -  Rationale

       -  Impact assessment

   2.  Review period

       -  Notice to affected parties

       -  Comment period

       -  Impact analysis

   3.  Governance decision

       -  Vote per charter rules

       -  Record of decision

       -  Dissent recorded

   4.  Implementation

       -  Scheduled change

       -  Monitoring period

       -  Rollback capability

   5.  Post-implementation review

       -  Impact verification

       -  Adjustment if needed

7.5.  Emergency E Reduction

   In emergencies, E can be reduced immediately:

   {
     "emergency_e_reduction": {
       "reduction_id": "eer-2025-12-03-001",
       "authorized_by": "gov:alice.smith",
       "authorization_time": "2025-12-03T14:00:00Z",
       "original_e_base": 60,
       "reduced_e_base": 30,
       "reduction_percentage": 50,
       "reason": "mass_compromise_detected",
       "evidence": "INC-2025-12-03-001",
       "duration_hours": 4,
       "auto_restore_time": "2025-12-03T18:00:00Z",
       "review_required": true,
       "review_deadline": "2025-12-04T14:00:00Z"
     }
   }

8.  Dispute Resolution

8.1.  Dispute Categories

      +------------------------+----------------------+------------------+
      | Category               | Description          | Resolution Path  |
      +------------------------+----------------------+------------------+
      | Governor vs. Governor  | Governors disagree   | Council          |
      |                        |                      | resolution       |
      | Zone vs. Zone          | Cross-zone disputes  | Federation       |
      |                        |                      | arbitration      |
      | Zone vs. Federation    | Zone disputes        | Meta-governance  |
      |                        | federation           |                  |
      | Stakeholder vs. Zone   | External party       | External         |
      |                        | dispute              | arbitration      |
      +------------------------+----------------------+------------------+

8.2.  Zone-Level Dispute Process

   1.  Filing

       -  Dispute documented

       -  Parties notified

       -  Temporary measures if needed

   2.  Investigation

       -  Facts gathered

       -  Evidence reviewed

       -  Parties heard

   3.  Deliberation

       -  Council reviews

       -  Options considered

       -  Decision made

   4.  Decision

       -  Written decision

       -  Rationale provided

       -  Remedies specified

   5.  Appeal (if available)

       -  Higher authority review

       -  Final decision

8.3.  Federation Arbitration

   Cross-zone disputes use federation arbitration:

   {
     "federation_arbitration": {
       "case_id": "FA-2025-001",
       "parties": {
         "claimant": "zone-blue-prod-01",
         "respondent": "zone-blue-prod-02"
       },
       "dispute_type": "trust_recognition",
       "arbitrators": [
         "arbitrator:neutral-zone-01",
         "arbitrator:neutral-zone-02",
         "arbitrator:neutral-zone-03"
       ],
       "process": {
         "filing_date": "2025-12-01",
         "response_deadline": "2025-12-08",
         "hearing_date": "2025-12-15",
         "decision_deadline": "2025-12-22"
       },
       "binding": true
     }
   }

9.  Accountability Mechanisms

9.1.  Governor Accountability

   Governors are accountable through:

   1.  Transparency: All governance actions logged and public

   2.  Audit: Regular external audit of governance

   3.  Recall: Mechanism to remove governors

   4.  Liability: Personal consequences for abuse

9.2.  Audit Requirements

   Zone governance MUST be audited:

      +------------+-----------+--------------------+
      | Audit Type | Frequency | Scope              |
      +------------+-----------+--------------------+
      | Compliance | Annual    | Charter adherence  |
      | Security   | Annual    | Security posture   |
      | External   | Annual    | Independent review |
      +------------+-----------+--------------------+

9.3.  Governor Removal

   Governors can be removed for cause:

   {
     "governor_removal": {
       "process": {
         "initiation": "petition_by_stakeholders_or_council",
         "petition_threshold": "20% of stakeholders OR 2 council members",
         "investigation": "independent_investigator",
         "hearing": "council_hearing_with_defense",
         "decision": "supermajority_vote",
         "appeal": "federation_arbitration"
       },
       "grounds": [
         "violation_of_charter",
         "abuse_of_authority",
         "conflict_of_interest",
         "failure_to_perform_duties",
         "conviction_of_relevant_offense"
       ],
       "consequences": {
         "removal_from_council": "immediate",
         "e_base_impact": "reduced_to_minimum",
         "future_governance": "barred_for_period"
       }
     }
   }

10.  Federation Governance

10.1.  Federation Structure

   Zones federate under shared governance:

   +-----------------------------------------------------------+
   |                   Federation Council                      |
   |          (representatives from member zones)              |
   +-----------------------------------------------------------+
             |                    |                    |
             v                    v                    v
   +------------------+  +------------------+  +------------------+
   |    Zone A        |  |    Zone B        |  |    Zone C        |
   |    Governance    |  |    Governance    |  |    Governance    |
   +------------------+  +------------------+  +------------------+

10.2.  Federation Authority

   Federation governance handles:

      +--------------------+----------------------------------+
      | Scope              | Authority                        |
      +--------------------+----------------------------------+
      | Trust Transfer     | Rules for cross-zone trust       |
      | Dispute Resolution | Cross-zone disputes              |
      | Membership         | Zone admission and expulsion     |
      | Emergency          | Coordinated emergency response   |
      +--------------------+----------------------------------+

11.  Meta-Governance

11.1.  Changing the Governance

   Governance itself must be governable -- but changes to governance are
   high-risk operations requiring high trust.

11.2.  Amendment Process

   Charter amendments follow strict process:

   1.  Proposal (requires 40% council support)

       -  Full text of proposed amendment

       -  Rationale

       -  Impact assessment

       -  Implementation plan

   2.  Notice Period (30 days minimum)

       -  Public notice

       -  Comment period

       -  Stakeholder notification

   3.  Deliberation

       -  Council review

       -  Public hearing (if major)

       -  Legal review

   4.  Vote (requires 80% council approval)

       -  Recorded vote

       -  Dissent documented

   5.  Ratification Period (14 days)

       -  Final objection window

       -  Implementation preparation

   6.  Implementation

       -  Staged rollout

       -  Monitoring

       -  Rollback capability

11.3.  Amendment Constraints

   Some amendments are constrained or prohibited:

      +-------------------------------+-----------------------------+
      | Amendment Type                | Constraint                  |
      +-------------------------------+-----------------------------+
      | Reduce transparency           | Requires 90% approval       |
      | Change dispute process        | Requires external review    |
      | Reduce governor accountability| Requires 90% approval       |
      | Increase E_base limits        | Requires impact assessment  |
      +-------------------------------+-----------------------------+

12.  Transparency Requirements

12.1.  Public Information

   The following MUST be public:

      +----------------------+------------------------------+
      | Information          | Publication                  |
      +----------------------+------------------------------+
      | Governor identities  | Publicly accessible          |
      | E_base values        | Publicly accessible          |
      | Governance decisions | Published within 24 hours    |
      | Audit reports        | Published within 30 days     |
      | Dispute outcomes     | Published (anonymized if     |
      |                      | needed)                      |
      +----------------------+------------------------------+

12.2.  Logging Requirements

   All governance actions are logged to the Flight Recorder with full
   attribution, timestamps, and authorization chain.

13.  Security Considerations

13.1.  Governance Attack Vectors

      +----------------------+---------------------------------------+
      | Attack               | Mitigation                            |
      +----------------------+---------------------------------------+
      | Collusion            | Distributed governors, transparency   |
      | Bribery              | Accountability, external audit        |
      | Regulatory capture   | Federation oversight, public          |
      |                      | transparency                          |
      | Slow-motion takeover | Amendment constraints, review cycles  |
      +----------------------+---------------------------------------+

13.2.  Governance Continuity

   Governance must continue during disruptions:

   -  Backup governors designated

   -  Emergency procedures documented

   -  Federation can provide temporary governance

   -  Clear succession protocols

14.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no IANA actions.

Appendix A.  Sample Zone Charters

   Example charters for different governance models.

Appendix B.  Governance Decision Templates

   Templates for common governance decisions.

Appendix C.  Audit Procedures

   Detailed procedures for governance audits.

Acknowledgments

   Governance design draws on political theory, organizational
   governance research, and lessons from internet governance bodies.