[discuss] List membership management

Michel Gauthier mg at telepresse.com
Tue May 6 10:08:47 UTC 2014

Dear Seun,

Probably time to clarify as far as Telepresse is concerned, the same 
as FSP4NET will probably do it today, now the reality of the 
ICANN/NTIA MS process biased use has been exposed and demonstrated.

For 16 years I am the telepresse information "jokey". This and 
Telepresse are fully described on our one visible page site. The 
Telepresse kernel of members uses a dropbox Eudora directory which is 
part of the "JFCnet" VGN (we were far less proactive before dropbox). 
This way every mail can be draft by one member and modified and/or 
extended/opposed by other stakeholders if he decides not to send it 
immediately or possibly deleted in archives when it is personal to 
the destinator.

This is therefore not one person using multiple email addresses, but 
several stakeholders using a single mail along a multistakeholder 
process. This is usually constructive. Think of telepresse as an IETF 
working group and of me as the Chair. Your demand (cf. Brian) is: 
tell  us who is your actual human person of your group of several 
persons. We are an MS process.

This question is purposely disruptive to avoid a true MS process: 
this is like for me to ask the US citizens on this list: who is your 
King, and them asking the British members: who is your President? I 
am what I say I am: the Telepresse information jockey.

What we observed is that this Telepresse approach is so constructive 
that our old and rustic "JFCnet" VGN experimentation capacity to 
support an MS process in the one way information area has exposed the 
flaws and biases of the ICANN NTIA pseudo MS process and unexpectedly 
entered the two way governance area.

We saw it when we were retaliated by disinformation, ad personam and 
computer hacks. This was a very interesting experience for us to 
analyse and learn from as the old Telepresse idea was only to best 
gather information by mutualization, not to invent polycratic tools 
and systems. We also understood why this creep that affected our 
journalist light information gathering system, was also affecting 
heavy commercial and political approaches like Google and NSA

Our MS process experimentation and experience is that an equal 
footing based polycratic decision process by emergence from 
individual mutually adapted individual independent decision can be 
derailed by trying to apply monocratic (who are you?) and democratic 
only (OK you are equal, but who is the leader?). This is like 
demanding an IETF WG who are you? Did you vote this RFC?

We strictly stick to the IETF/IUCG Tao: "We reject kings, presidents 
and voting. We believe in rough consensus, running code, and leaving 
mode". Who is the real author of a WG's RFC? Our difference (it is 
important and only possible because we are a multi-stakeholders 
coopted group) is that every member of the Telepresse kernel is 
permitted to evaluate if there is a rough multi consensus (i.e. there 
is a consensus on the evaluation of multiple different consensus 
groups which may then have their own jokeys).

I only wish to note that the world is used to this practice for four 
centuries and that this is the multitude's counter-power (as in this 
case): this is the newspaper room mechanism and journalism practice. 
This practice of ours has only exposed that the NTIA was 
relinquishing its strategic oversight to an I*Mafia meshed network. 
We are opposed by the members of this network for the same reason 
press is opposed all over the world and history. And in the same 
manner: this is not the content which is attacked, it is the media. 
Moreover that in this case, they observe that the media is also the 
message: we are a true MS process, while their's is a fake. The 
Telepresse journalistic role was to discover, analyze and report. It 
is not shaped to correct or replace.



At 08:22 06/05/2014, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

>I think that question goes either way; what has using multiple 
>emails by one person produced so far? Except that I have perhaps 
>referring to a non existing name. - you know those feelings that 
>comes when you call someone by name and then you suddenly realised 
>that wasn't it's name afterall.
>For me I am not against using multiple email, but I am against using 
>multiple identities by one person.
>sent from Google nexus 4
>kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>On 6 May 2014 02:50, "Michel Gauthier" 
><<mailto:mg at telepresse.com>mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
>At 22:12 05/05/2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Indeed. And one-person one-name seems to be a vital rule to avoid 
>falsifying the debate.
>Dont you think that confusing /2NET with a debate is precisely what 
>falsifies the MS process? Could you please indicate who is then the 
>ICANN, ISOC, IAB, IETF, W3C, ITU, IEEE, RIR one person who shoualong 
>you participate to the MS process concerning the IANA transition?
>My understanding of this list now is that there are people who want 
>to work and build a real project with its real stakeholders and 
>those who only want to chat with other chatters.
>Question is: what has the one-person one-mail-name module produced 
>so far irt. the internet use satisfaction? I am just asking. I try 
>to figure out what MSism is and what non
>M G
>discuss mailing list
><mailto:discuss at 1net.org>discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140506/e2c30676/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list