[discuss] governments and rule of law (was: Possible approaches to solving...)
mg at telepresse.com
Thu Feb 27 13:25:13 UTC 2014
At 07:52 27/02/2014, Avri Doria wrote:
>And hopefully just the knowledge that a decision might be made by
>the Board is enough to stop the deadlockers from deadlocking and
>forcing them to play by the rule and negotiate in good faith.
By which rule?
Rules in an MS context can only be agreed by the stakeholders (what
leads to the deadlock in that case). So what you advocate is that the
Board has its own rule to violate the MS rule. There are three
situations I can think of.
1. there is no violation because the Board does not manage anything
obeing any MS rule because being itself a stakeholder among the
others. This is no problem but the Board cannot manage a monopoly.
2. the Board is usurping a power which does belong to an MS context.
3. this is a critical situation: it will resolve itself along
self-organizing criticality natural (mathematical) rules of the
universe. René Thom theory of catastrophes, Per Back's SOC theory. I
understand VGNs as this kind of resolution.
The main question seems to be a lack of analsys of what are MSism,
subsidiarity and substitution. IMHO a good example should be the way
the internet itself works. How does the network itself decide. By
nature a distributed network (whatever the kind of relations and
nodes is an MS network.
What I observe is that in the /1net debate there is a constant
confusion between monarchic, democratic and polycratic paradigms.
People have to chose: nothing opposes that they coexist in different
centralised, decentralised and distributed entities, but they cannot
mix when considering the governance of a given entity or relational
space. Is the governance of the decentralised internet to
centralised, decentralised or distributed? This is an "or", there
cannot be "and". And only a distributed governance seems to have a
chance to be stable and last.
I am just an observer and an analyst. I do not decide, but I can
identify where the bug is. The Jefsey's identification of the BUG
(being unilateraly global) seems correct to me. However, I do not
object if ICANN is unilateral within the ICANN community, as long as
this does not affect/commit the whole Internet community members, and
more generally all the stakeholders.
This also addresses the Gregory's odd contribution:
>At 02:18 27/02/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>The Mandate of the EWG was as follows:
Who decided the mandate?
I note that he explains the GNSO and PDP acronyms. Not EWG which by
nature discriminates among stakeholders and supposed experts (i.e.
people who would know better than stakeholders what stakeholders want
>So, there is plenty of community, stakeholder and user involvement
>in this EWG. And of course, the reason that Steve cited a
>Board-initiated group was based on the question he was responding
>to. There are plenty of times where work is initiated by groups
>other than the Board.
The monarchic, democratic and polycratic confusion is here clearly
detailed: community, stakeholder, user, experts where there should
only be a single unique MSWG.
I accept that the analysis, and more over the catalysis, are
difficult as everything is weaved together: this is the single
authoritative root of complexity :-). Complexus in latin means
something weaved. A catalysis in complexity consists in rebuilding
together (like in an agora) all the elements that make things working
better than a simple logical synthesis. This is why if you ask a
computer it will respond. If you ask a logical process it will
conclude. If you ask an MS agora something may only emerge -
democracy it is by vote, polycracy says it is by the addition of the
consequences of the individual decisions.
More information about the discuss