[discuss] What is MSism?
jefsey at jefsey.com
Wed Mar 26 09:11:55 UTC 2014
The first question should be "what is MSism". I have posted this
definition and its comparison with polycracy. I am surprised by the
resulting general agreement (no one opposed). I therefore copy it to
some other mailing lists, so we have a common working basis.
MSism, as we hear of it, is shaped from Doug Engelbart's
concepts. It is a diktyarchy (from diktyos: network) i.e. an
intergovernance between peer structured autoselected entities. The
autoselection process is based upon the time network/global
availability, i.e. the capacity to collectively meet on a mailing
list and anytime anywhere. This is to produce the buzz that will
exceed the noise of reality and the squawk of the multitude. It is to
polycracy the equivalent of monarchy to democracy. Technically, MS
proceeds from a root/server/client hierarchic model (however its
slogan is "on an equal footing" [for the leaders only, cf. RFC 6852,
Montevideo statement], while polycracy proceeds from a "master and
master" open capability model.
The difficulty in the extension from democracy to polycracy is that
diktyarchy looks democratic to the onlooker: democracy is about
decision decentralization; MSism keeps that decision decentralization
within its political, business, and societal structures that dialogue
together. Polycracy is actually about decision distribution among
political, business, and societal individuals who multilogue together
in any manner they wish and decide by themselves.
This is why MSism is a method to deploy "reasonable" decisions
collectively agreed among mutually accepted
share/status/stake-holders, while polycracy is the autopoietic
emergence of the life of the multitude through individual considered
decisions. Both systems are adapted to our time. MSism is selected
network centric, and polycracy is people centered.
In MSism, structures (states and corporates) ally to govern the
"others", i.e. the WSIS definition of the "civil society", and
sponsor politically acceptable civil society structures. It is an
interesting concept by its "mid-up/down" practical capacities of
substitution: it is alliances centered. In its own turn, polycracy
accepts substitution but only in its normal role of substitution of
subsidiarity: it is people centered.
What is at stake in here for the Internet Governance is the virtual
world built as an ICANN contractual diktyarchy vs. a real world that
will progressively erode the NTIA leadership in an operational
polycracy. The real question is about whether this evolution will
occur in the most seamless way possible, in the best respect of the
"digility" (from digital personality) of everyone.
This is why I propose to start from what we know, as the WSIS has
advised. If we proceed from the person ("centrada en la persona" says
the Spanish version of the WSIS declaration) entering the digisphere,
i.e. the digitally split vision of its environmental reality, and
considers its digital rights. We can pursue with the inviolability of
people's "digicile" (digital-domicile: using simple, clear,
universally understandable notions extending our daily life in the
digisphere through direct metaphors can only help). From there we can
then proceed and differentiate what belongs to physical government,
ethical behavior, and digital governance.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss