[discuss] List membership management

Tue May 6 15:35:21 UTC 2014

“Jokey”, indeed.

From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Michel Gauthier
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 6:09 AM
To: Seun Ojedeji; Michel Gauthier
Cc: discuss at 1net.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] List membership management

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.

Best.

M G

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.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 6 May 2014 02:50, "Michel Gauthier" <mg at telepresse.com<mailto: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
discuss at 1net.org<mailto:discuss at 1net.org>
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140506/3cb09b35/attachment.html>