[discuss] What is MSism?

[McTim]

Hi Nathalie,

As Andrew explained there are different versions of MSism for different fora.

Some are absolutely multi-equal (everyone on an absolutely equal
footing) some are not at all multi-equal.

If policy development processes were predictable, then there would be
little point to use the process at all.

rgds,

McTim


On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:28 PM, nathalie coupet
<nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Andrew and George,
>
> With MS-ism, there seems to be an increased awareness that stakeholders are
> not on an equal footing, that decisions taken according to MS processes are
> not predictable and this clashes with the promise of empowerment for all
> that MS seems to have made. Discouragement, disillusion and frustration will
> certainly follow.
>
>
> Nathalie
>
> ________________________________
> From: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
> To: discuss at 1net.org
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 10:02 AM
>
> Subject: Re: [discuss] What is MSism?
>
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 08:07:38AM -0400, McTim wrote:
>>
>> It is clear that many of us (most of us I am guessing) on 1Net prefer
>> direct democracy:
>
> There is something faintly circular in the reasoning there.  I'm not
> sure it matters what most on this list prefer, because I don't think
> that this list was set up on the principles of voting or democracy.
> Certainly, if it was, it's news to me.
>
> Importantly, for anything impinging on the functioning of the
> Internet, I am not in favour of direct democracy.  If the discussions
> on this list have demonstrated anything, it is that there is a vast
> number of people who have such deep technical confusion about how the
> Internet actually works as to be disqualified from having an opinion
> on what should be done with it.  People are of course entitled to
> their own opinions, but I don't think that all opinions on technical
> matters of fact ought to have equal standing.  Hence Dave Clark's
> famous adage about the IETF: "We reject: kings, presidents and voting.
> We believe in: rough consensus and running code."
>
>> Given that 1Net is all about MSism:
>
> I have been a little frustrated by these threads about what "MSism"
> is, and I have a sneaking suspicion that this is because it isn't one
> thing.  For instance, many people think ICANN, the IETF, and the RIRs
> are multistakholder organizations.  To the extent that is true, it's
> revealing, because they work in very different ways.  Most of the RIRs
> have some notion of membership, usually relating to whether one holds
> allocations from the region.  Moreover, the RIRs are already
> implicitly tied to geography (itself a problematic notion on the
> Internet).  ICANN has constituencies, and one nominally works through
> those consituencies, though of course public comment is widely
> welcome.  The IETF does not have formal consituencies or membership,
> and anyone is welcome to comment on anything on the mailing list, but
> one tends to be ignored if one's arguments don't get support or at
> least acknowledgement from others.
>
> What seems to me to be a common thread among these things, however, is
> that the mechanisms are different adaptations to trying to get as many
> relevant and informed opinions into the "tussle" about tricky
> problems.  In this sense, the precise definition is less important, I
> think, than the style of working.  So,
>
>> Those MS processes aren't about power, but largely about which ideas
>> are better than others [...].
>
> I think this is where we should concentrate.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss