[discuss] Beyon IPv6...(evolution of IPv6 thread to what are we all doing here?) + CC BY SA ?

Mon Dec 30 02:14:51 UTC 2013

At 23:28 29/12/2013, nathalie coupet wrote:
>Joe:
>
>Thank you for your honest answer. Could you elaborate on this and 
>provide more details about the context and circumstances which would 
>warrant co-decision making capacity for all stakeholders?
>
>'I think we can all agree that we believe that stakeholders should 
>have a broader role than merely being provided an opportunity to 
>provide input, but that does not imply the role of co-decision-maker 
>across the board – that is rooted iin context and circumstances."

Nathalie,

I will come back privately on this because architectonic 
considerations do not belong to a list set-up to prepare a 
circumstancial meeting.

There is an evolution in which we are bogged down between democracy, 
polycracy and syncracy. All of them permits people to provide inputs. 
Their difference is on the way people deal with their best interest 
afterwards. In democracy they consider the result of a vote. In 
polycracy they consider the result of local/specialized consensus 
(ex. IETF). In syncracy they consider the lessons they learned from the debate.

* In democracy they want to know what the leaders propose.
* In polycracy they want to know why a solution would be better.
* In syncracy they want to know how they should best proceed.

The Sao Paulo meeting sits in between. Polycracy has some experience. 
Syncracy not really yet. We are learning for nearly two decades: we 
covered a lot, but this is still rather new.

In addition it is still unclear so far if this meeting will be mostly 
hardware (infrastructure, geo-sovereignty), software (technology, 
laws) or brainware (use and society) oriented.

jfc

PS. Thanks to Brian Carpenter PDF. This is probably the best way to proceed.

Brian, since this paper of yours is outside of any documented 
copyright I assume that your document is is CC BY CA?