[discuss] What is MSism?

[Michel Gauthier]

May be, Greg, you have not read the whole mail of George when is says 
one should read before responding. Nor read the mail of JFC when he 
says that he will consider George's mail (it is more kindly said) 
only when George will apply his own rules to himeself. This response 
of yours only gives the feeling that you do not know how to comment 
JFC definitions.


JFC, I am quite interested in your clear explanation of what MSism 
and polycracy (might) mean. However, I feel you make a dichotomy 
between those two, or at least between diktyarchy and polycracy while 
one could imagine (it seems it is what we do all the day long) a 
complementarity between those two. On your French list you use the 
idea of the multitude having to invest the magnitude's mailing lists 
in order to keep themselves abreast, I would say, of the way they are 
going to be coocked. Is that not some forme of cooperation between 
the Cook and the cooked?

M G


At 11:51 26/03/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>Content-Language: en-US
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> 
>boundary="_000_DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C20929USPDCMAIL002Pre_"
>
>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.
>
>Greg Shatan
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org
>http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140326/90fd1e07/attachment.html>