[discuss] List membership management
mg at telepresse.com
Tue May 6 10:08:47 UTC 2014
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
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
>discuss mailing list
><mailto:discuss at 1net.org>discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the discuss