[discuss] What is MSism?

Fri Mar 28 18:20:24 UTC 2014

McTim,

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of McTim
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 10:50 AM
To: nathalie coupet
Cc: 1 Net List
Subject: Re: [discuss] What is MSism?

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.

[MG>] So who gets to choose which version is to be used in which context and
what gives those who are doing this selection their authority to make those
choices.

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

[MG>] Surely you mean "If (the outcome of) policy development processes were
predictable, then there would be little point to use the process at all."
The absence of predictable policy development processes opens those
processes up to enormous abuse and delegitimizes those processes even in the
areas where it has proven to be effective.

M

rgds,

McTim

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 12:28 PM, nathalie coupet <
<mailto:nathaliecoupet at yahoo.com> 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 < <mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>

> To:  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> 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

>  <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>
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

> 

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> discuss mailing list

>  <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org

>  <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________

discuss mailing list

 <mailto:discuss at 1net.org> discuss at 1net.org

 <http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140328/67209c24/attachment.html>