<html>
<body>
May be, Greg, you have not read the whole mail of George when is says one
should read before responding. Nor read the mail of JFC when he says that
he will consider George's mail (it is more kindly said) only when George
will apply his own rules to himeself. This response of yours only gives
the feeling that you do not know how to comment JFC definitions.
<br><br>
<br>
JFC, I am quite interested in your clear explanation of what MSism and
polycracy (might) mean. However, I feel you make a dichotomy between
those two, or at least between diktyarchy and polycracy while one could
imagine (it seems it is what we do all the day long) a complementarity
between those two. On your French list you use the idea of the multitude
having to invest the magnitude's mailing lists in order to keep
themselves abreast, I would say, of the way they are going to be coocked.
Is that not some forme of cooperation between the Cook and the
cooked?<br><br>
M G<br><br>
<br>
At 11:51 26/03/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Content-Language: en-US<br>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;<br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
boundary="_000_DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF27222C20929USPDCMAIL002Pre_"<br>
<br>
My response to this post is to point to two of George’s etiquette
items:<br>
<br>
9. If there are no responses to a post, posters should not assume that
the material they have posted has been agreed to by readers. People
on the list generally have busy lives, and often will not respond to
posts. Statements such as “no one on the list has refuted my
statement yet" should not lead to the assumption that others agree
with it. It is equally likely that the post is judged to be
incorrect or irrelevant. Readers have no obligation to correct erroneous
material that has been posted to the list by others.<br>
<br>
5. Successful posts use vocabulary that is simple and whose meaning is
well-understood by readers of the list. Successful posts are
formatted with some care so that they are easily readable by
others.<br>
<br>
And I would also point to my suggested item of etiquette:<br>
<br>
Don’t cross-post, except to provide some basic information that needs
to be disseminated widely (e.g., NTIA announcement or Marca Civil), and
even this should be avoided. Don’t cross-post opinions or
anything that would require a response. Don’t cross-post
replies.<br>
<br>
Greg Shatan<br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> discuss-bounces@1net.org
[<a href="mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:discuss-bounces@1net.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jefsey<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:12 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> discuss@1net.org List<br>
<b>Cc:</b> internetgovtech@iab.org; ianatransition@icann.org;
iucg@ietf.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [discuss] What is MSism?<br>
<br>
The first question should be "what is MSism". I have posted
this definition and its comparison with polycracy. I am surprised by the
resulting general agreement (no one opposed). I therefore copy it to some
other mailing lists, so we have a common working basis.<br><br>
----<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" eudora="autourl">
http://www.dougengelbart.org/about/dce-bio.html</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. <br><br>
<br><br>
<div align="center"><font size=2>* * *<br>
</font></div>
<br>
<font size=2>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.<br>
</font><br>
<div align="center"><font size=2>* * *<br>
</font></div>
<br>
<font size=2>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.<br>
</font><br>
<div align="right"><font size=1>Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00<br>
</font></div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
discuss@1net.org<br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" eudora="autourl">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a></blockquote></body>
</html>