<html>
<body>
On 14:02 26/03/2014, Michel Gauthier said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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?</blockquote><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>This is a very interesting, important, and complex
question just as all the problems we face herein are. I accept, however,
that NO other thing here is more pressing, relevant, or fruitful. In
despite of what some, more concerned by details, may wrongly assume. The
emphasis put on MSism by NTIA shows it is the key part of the debate: if
one wants to negotiate without knowing exactly what one is negotiating
about there are few chances that we will reach a win/win situation, i.e.
stability.<br><br>
We have two propositions to a complex problem that is not so surprisingly
identified through the DNS (i.e. the human semantic layer), but which is
actually the governance of the digisphere (from bits and digits to big
data and quantum computers, including our own human ecosystem in their
increasingly important context). As for everything, elements or
quantities are of two kinds: multitude and magnitude, or discrete
quantity and continuous quantity. Our common vision is continuity
(height, width, depth). The digital renormalization that we currently
live with is the capacity introduced by Jacquard to see the discontinuity
in the continuity (data with their three dimensions: data, metadata, and
syllodata) that we tie together by the continuity/discontinuity of time.
Relativity and quantum physics. Visible (photons) and unvisible
(EPR).<br><br>
- Multitude in everything or discrete quantity or individuality. It is a
natural plurality or multiplicity. This means that quantity (digits,
people, power, coins and bank notes, projects, decisions, etc.) is
divisible into really separate or non-continuous persons (this is
democracy), ideas (topics as says Fadi), or parts (this is mechanics).
And in this case: stake/share/status-holders.<br><br>
- Magnitude or continuous quantity is divisible into continuous parts
(numers, concepts, principles, globality), that is, there is no natural
separation or division between them. Politically, this is concerted
cooperation. In our case, this is functions (ICANN, IANA).<br><br>
The danger of multitude is fragmentation. The whole idea of Montevideo is
to oppose fragmentation. In turn, the danger of magnitude is the
augmentation of power due to an abuse of its continuity: up to now
through the numbers, numerus, i.e. money (oligarchy), time (hereditary
power), and now also by the network continuity (diktyarchy). <br><br>
There certainly is, as you point it out, a possible compromise (we live
as you say in, by, from it!). It is to blend them into reality: putting
continuity in discontinuity (e.g. projects, plans, representation) and
putting discontinuity in discontinuity (e.g. renewing people, reviews,
phased projects, elections). This is the mathematical incompletude, the
notion of infinite, etc. In the case of MSism, the problem (apart
from a possible lack of democracy) is the impermeability of the multitude
due to the right to continuously hold some stakes. Two, in particular,
seem to be a problem:<br><br>
- the share-holder: He has purchased the right to hold.
Corporations.<br>
- the status-holder. He holds on a permanent basis.<br><br>
These two cases tend to increase the size of the minimum stake to be
involved. Democracy means that everyone belongs to the elite. The stake
is simply to be a citizen. Everyone is equal. In MSism it is on an equal
footing. The footing may be very high. In democratic Athens, you had to
be a citizen while the multitude comprised mechanicians and slaves
(today�s techies and consumers).<br><br>
If you take care of the two dangers and weight them accordingly you can
reach a good balance. This *IS* the problem we have to work out. With or
without the ICANN, the NTIA and/or the IANA. Just a good rule of thumb:
diktyarchy is the networked bureaucracy, and polycracy is the global
democracy. MSism is a circumstantial balance among those two, where
groups of public (States), private (Corporate), and common (others)
interests aggregate in enhanced cooperation. We need that enhanced
cooperation. As usual, a good protection against unequal treatment and
unethical processes, while there is such large differences between the
involved stakeholders, from you and me to the US and UN, is subsidiarity
and autopoiesis, <i>( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis), i.e. the way
the autocatalytic dynamic of life works</i>.<br><br>
The internet is a large and complex system (RFC 3439) that is a covenant
between people about the way their machines will work together. This is
why code is law. However, this also means that law is code. And today we
have two laws, proceeding from two cultures, which are interestingly
confronted. The law from magnitude by the largest world economy and the
Congress status quo, and since yesterday, the law of multitude by the
Brazilian Parliament and the effort of the digital society. What is to be
discovered is how to blend them.<br><br>
In the WSIS, we, the people of the world, consensually expressed that it
was through a people centered society, in the respect of Human Rights. If
it is to be through MS enhanced cooperation, our problem to be solved is
how to make MSism and enhanced cooperation enter Human Rights.<br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>