[discuss] What is MSism?
jefsey at jefsey.com
Mon Apr 7 13:09:08 UTC 2014
The problem we first face is to use at least 6 lists to discuss the
same thing under different but crossed perspectives. If we cannot fix
it, it is likely we will not be able to fix the NTIA removal issue!
At 06:22 07/04/2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>(This hasn't happened, but not dissimilar things have happened over
>both character sets and cryptographic algorithms.)
Except to support orthotypography (e.g. the French language majuscules) :-) !
You are aboslutely correct: this is the difference between people and
multitude. People can be affiliated and usually are (nations,
political parties, etc.). Multitude is the aggregation of persons
retaining their self-determinaton. This is why democracy (people at
least accept the same constitution that organizes it) is not
polycracy (people [and their machines]) only accept their own determination.
The whole issue in our debate is to determine if we want to consider
others as belonging to a democraticaly sovereign community or to a
polycratic multitude of sovereigns. In other words, if IG
acknowledges our national laws (we need states), only the
international law (we need UN) or our free covenants (such as RFCs,
ICANN contracts, etc.), but who provides arbitration and enforcement?
Can ICE, or can a foreign Judge, proceed to the seizure of my
nationally located site.
At 08:05 07/04/2014, Abdussalam Baryun wrote
>People can't be responsible when governments fail even if the people
>elect the government. People/organisations cannot be responsible for
>ICANN's fail/success even if they were given time to propose, elect
>directors, direct, participate, or/and discuss the transition. This
>transition is mostly under NTIA responsibility, and will end within
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitude: "the (fear of the) power
(potentia) of the multitude is the limit of sovereign power
(potestas)". I have proposed to experiment the reality of the
multitude's capacity level as VGN, Host, site, access Masters through
the HomeRoot (http://dnsa.org/index.php/TopZone) /SuperIANA
(http://dnsa.org) /Happy-IP experimentation projects that start being
documented under http://dnsa.org because the only thing all of us
immediately share is the digital naming space aggregation.
At 12:29 07/04/2014, Vint Cerf wrote:
>The purpose behind the Supporting Organizations had been to parse
>ICANN stakeholders into mutually orthogonal groups but it is my
>sense that this is proving awkward because the participants in the
>ICANN processes have multiple interests that span multiple stakeholder groups.
>I continue to believe that the mechanisms are in place and can be
>exercised to allow ICANN to provide stewardship for the IANA
>functions and to adapt its own processes to make the
>multistakeholder model work even better.
Actually ICANN could consider SO as area and the BoD as the IESG,
except there is no AIB. In my own experience the whole MS mechanism
as translated from the USG (or other governement) suffers from being
democratic and not polycratic.
1) an MS open process does not necessarily works as designed. There
is a trust based attendance. Experienc in IUCG shows that IETF has
specifically extended to informed users, but the debate has not taken
off in the proposed manner (talks are bilateral, bilingual, segmented).
2) the MS processes as experienced for years by the ITU, USG, IETF,
Europe, etc. are within a decentralized and not in a distributed
framework. What is going to happen when there is a disagreement? A
fork or fragmentation. The only solution in this case is a
reconciliation emergence scheme
This is my objection to RFC 6852: they have not foreseen a common
appeal scheme in case of cross SDO conflict, nor of dialog (IAB is in
chage of liaisons) in case of users dissatisfaction.
These are things the dnsa.org experimentation tries to explore.
Everyone welcome to join the discussion list (but one do nos discuu
More information about the discuss