[discuss] What is MSism?

[Jefsey]

At 17:28 28/03/2014, nathalie coupet 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,

MS-ism is a functional management system called concertation in EU. 
The problem we face is the reluctance of the incumbents to welcome 
new commers because they do not identify how the whole thing can 
work. The legal formula in Telecommunications is competition through 
the unbundling of the incumbents propositions. This leads to what is 
called coopetition where you may compete with your own customers 
because they may be better/cheaper than you in using your own 
products on a market segment.

Frustration only comes, for the time being, from ICANN having still 
some difficulty understanding that the removal of the NTIA political 
protection makes it join the common telecommunications coopetitive 
life. To the countrary it tries to confort its position in bundling 
things, e.g. the bundled IANA/ICANN globalization.

This is because ICANN has not identified yet its market. It still 
wants to please the NTIA instead of attracting customers. All the 
accountability, etc. stuff is of strictly no interest to users. It is 
of importance to the Juge in case one, or a class of, customers sues 
them. What customers want is usueful, stable, secure, competitive 
deliverables.

ICANN has now the problem of publishing the catalog and the prices of 
its products on an open market, while it operates since its inception 
on a protected market. This is why our ICANN-ICP-3 conformant 
experimentation project (HomeRoot, SuperIANA, (hapy)IP-user) is 
important for them to sense their new context. We cannot 
individually, at the begining, be yet on an equal footing with the 
incumbent, but the incumbent is only a part of our multitude.

Let do like the NTIA: forget about ICANN and live your life.
Come in Montpellier in July!

jfc



>
>
>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 wherre we should concentrate.
>
>Best regards,
>
>A
>
>--
>Andrew Sullivan
><mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>discuss mailing list
><mailto:discuss at 1net.org>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140328/da0f6639/attachment.html>