[discuss] What is MSism?
jefsey at jefsey.com
Fri Mar 28 14:18:54 UTC 2014
At 13:07 28/03/2014, McTim wrote:
>Given my experience in MS processes (including WSIS) over the last
>decade+ it is clear to me that the MS model is one that works far
>better in protecting an open Internet than representative democracy.
>Those MS processes aren't about power, but largely about which ideas
>are better than others (WSIS was an exception to this rule).
You have probably not read the question of Michel Gauthier on this
and the response I made. Monarchy, Oligarchy, Democracy, , Anarchy,
Polycracy, Diktyarchy are political systems (the last two being the
extension of democracy and monarchy in a networked context). MSism is
a functional system that every political system can use when
addressing networked problems.
The WSIS has politically documented a society centered on every
person (being public, moral, or physical) from you to the UN: this is
polycracy, i.e. networked global "democracy" (a democracy needs a
constitutional framework to say who vote; there is "no king,
president and votes" in polycracy). It has identified three main
groups of stakholders (Govs, private sector, and others they called
"civil society"). Then it has documented the way everything had to
work as an "enhanced cooperation", leaving its definition to experience.
The ICANN and NTIA MSism is to functionnally drive the IG and ICANN.
In this particular tasks the stakeholders are those who lead
cooperating functions (ICANN, ISOC, IEEE, IAB, IESG, IETF, RIRs,
W3C). In the case of ICANN the main stakeholders are ASO, GNSO, ccNSO
and ALAC with additional specialized ones.
The NTIA and WSIS have different perspectives: societal and
operational. The question is to know if one can match them in order
to get a stable solution.
1. the WSIS has made an error in categorizing the societal groups: it
has reducted the information society to Govs, Private sector and
"others" (called civil society). This was forgetting that the whole
is more than the sum of its parts, particularly in a networked
system. Others are much more that the Civil Society. This is why one
has rather to start from the whole (Multitude) and rationalize some
societal tasks which are Governements and Industry, with plenty of
room to consider Techies, Universities, HR, users, etc. etc.
2. The NTIA's position reshapes the Governements' implication, from
Executive to Justice. This gives a tremendous advantage to the US as
most of the "stakeholders" and Edge Providers of the ICANNet are
located in the US. This replaces theory and ethics by pragmatism as a
priority. If something goes wrong, the Juge will decide according to
the Law: the lawmaker is the one to have dealt with theory and
ethics. Governments' political involvement is reduced to GAC (not UN,
not ITU) and CS can lobby lawmakers and shout at Courts' decisions.
The problem in this case is that the US law, which was the first one
having to deal with datacommunications, did it before deregulation
and has to adapt to innovation and societal evolution (as just did Brazil).
More information about the discuss