<html>
<body>
At 02:13 25/03/2014, michael gurstein wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Content-Type:
multipart/alternative;<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0F4E_01CF478C.D339AE40"<br>
Content-Language: en-us<br><br>
As a matter of fact I don’t agree that “multistakeholderism is the way
forward” at least not in its current undefined and poorly elaborated form
with no evident safeguards for the public interest.
</blockquote><br>
+1<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>MSism, as we hear of it, is shaped from Doug
Engelbart’s
(<a href="http://www.dougengelbart.org/about/dce-bio.html">
http://www.dougengelbart.org/about/dce-bio.html</a><a name="_GoBack"></a>
) concepts. It is a diktyarchy (from diktyos: network) i.e. an
intergovernance between peer structured autoselected entities. The
autoselection process is based upon the time network/global availability,
i.e. the capacity to collectively meet on a mailing list and anytime
anywhere. This is to produce the buzz that will exceed the noise of
reality and the squawk of the multitude. It is to polycracy the
equivalent of monarchy to democracy. Technically, MS proceeds from a
root/server/client hierarchic model (however its slogan is "on an
equal footing" [for the leaders only, cf. RFC 6852, Montevideo
statement], while polycracy proceeds from a "master and master"
open capability model. <br>
<br>
The difficulty in the extension from democracy to polycracy is that
diktyarchy looks democratic to the onlooker: democracy is about decision
decentralization; MSism keeps that decision decentralization within its
political, business, and societal structures that dialogue together.
Polycracy is actually about decision distribution among political,
business, and societal individuals who multilogue together in any manner
they wish and decide by themselves. <br><br>
This is why MSism is a method to deploy "reasonable" decisions
collectively agreed among mutually accepted share/status/stake-holders,
while polycracy is the autopoietic emergence of the life of the multitude
through individual considered decisions. Both systems are adapted to our
time. MSism is selected network centric, and polycracy is people
centered. <br><br>
In MSism, structures (states and corporates) ally to govern the
"others", i.e. the WSIS definition of the "civil
society", and sponsor politically acceptable civil society
structures. It is an interesting concept by its "mid-up/down"
practical capacities of substitution: it is alliances centered. In its
own turn, polycracy accepts substitution but only in its normal role of
substitution of subsidiarity: it is people centered.<br><br>
What is at stake in here for the Internet Governance is the virtual world
built as an ICANN contractual diktyarchy vs. a real world that will
progressively erode the NTIA leadership in an operational polycracy. The
real question is about whether this evolution will occur in the most
seamless way possible, in the best respect of the "digility"
(from digital personality) of everyone.<br><br>
This is why I propose to start from what we know, as the WSIS has
advised. If we proceed from the person ("centrada en la
persona" says the Spanish version of the WSIS declaration) entering
the digisphere, i.e. the digitally split vision of its environmental
reality, and considers its digital rights. We can pursue with the
inviolability of people’s “digicile” (digital-domicile: using simple,
clear, universally understandable notions extending our daily life in the
digisphere through direct metaphors can only help). From there we can
then proceed and differentiate what belongs to physical government,
ethical behavior, and digital governance. </body>
</html>