[discuss] What is MSism?
Shatan, Gregory S.
GShatan at ReedSmith.com
Wed Mar 26 10:51:31 UTC 2014
My response to this post is to point to two of George’s etiquette items:
9. If there are no responses to a post, posters should not assume that the material they have posted has been agreed to by readers. People on the list generally have busy lives, and often will not respond to posts. Statements such as “no one on the list has refuted my statement yet" should not lead to the assumption that others agree with it. It is equally likely that the post is judged to be incorrect or irrelevant. Readers have no obligation to correct erroneous material that has been posted to the list by others.
5. Successful posts use vocabulary that is simple and whose meaning is well-understood by readers of the list. Successful posts are formatted with some care so that they are easily readable by others.
And I would also point to my suggested item of etiquette:
Don’t cross-post, except to provide some basic information that needs to be disseminated widely (e.g., NTIA announcement or Marca Civil), and even this should be avoided. Don’t cross-post opinions or anything that would require a response. Don’t cross-post replies.
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Jefsey
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:12 PM
To: discuss at 1net.org List
Cc: internetgovtech at iab.org; ianatransition at icann.org; iucg at ietf.org
Subject: [discuss] What is MSism?
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 ( http://www.dougengelbart.org/about/dce-bio.html ) 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.
* * *
This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.
* * *
To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss