<html>
<body>
At 17:28 28/03/2014, nathalie coupet wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hello Andrew and George,<br>
With MS-ism, there seems to be an increased awareness that stakeholders
are not on an equal footing, that decisions taken according to MS
processes are not predictable and this clashes with the promise of
empowerment for all that MS seems to have made. Discouragement,
disillusion and frustration will certainly follow. </blockquote><br>
Nathalie,<br><br>
MS-ism is a functional management system called concertation in EU. The
problem we face is the reluctance of the incumbents to welcome new
commers because they do not identify how the whole thing can work. The
legal formula in Telecommunications is competition through the unbundling
of the incumbents propositions. This leads to what is called coopetition
where you may compete with your own customers because they may be
better/cheaper than you in using your own products on a market
segment.<br><br>
Frustration only comes, for the time being, from ICANN having still some
difficulty understanding that the removal of the NTIA political
protection makes it join the common telecommunications coopetitive life.
To the countrary it tries to confort its position in bundling things,
e.g. the bundled IANA/ICANN globalization.<br><br>
This is because ICANN has not identified yet its market. It still wants
to please the NTIA instead of attracting customers. All the
accountability, etc. stuff is of strictly no interest to users. It is of
importance to the Juge in case one, or a class of, customers sues them.
What customers want is usueful, stable, secure, competitive deliverables.
<br><br>
ICANN has now the problem of publishing the catalog and the prices of its
products on an open market, while it operates since its inception on a
protected market. This is why our ICANN-ICP-3 conformant experimentation
project (HomeRoot, SuperIANA, (hapy)IP-user) is important for them to
sense their new context. We cannot individually, at the begining, be yet
on an equal footing with the incumbent, but the incumbent is only a part
of our multitude.<br><br>
Let do like the NTIA: forget about ICANN and live your life. <br>
Come in Montpellier in July! <br><br>
jfc<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <br>
<br>
Nathalie<br><br>
<br>
<font size=2><b>From:</b> Andrew Sullivan
<ajs@anvilwalrusden.com><br>
<b>To:</b> discuss@1net.org <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, March 28, 2014 10:02 AM<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [discuss] What is MSism?<br>
</font><br>
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 08:07:38AM -0400, McTim wrote:<br>
> <br>
> It is clear that many of us (most of us I am guessing) on 1Net
prefer<br>
> direct democracy:<br><br>
There is something faintly circular in the reasoning there. I'm
not<br>
sure it matters what most on this list prefer, because I don't think<br>
that this list was set up on the principles of voting or democracy.<br>
Certainly, if it was, it's news to me.<br><br>
Importantly, for anything impinging on the functioning of the<br>
Internet, I am not in favour of direct democracy. If the
discussions<br>
on this list have demonstrated anything, it is that there is a vast<br>
number of people who have such deep technical confusion about how
the<br>
Internet actually works as to be disqualified from having an opinion<br>
on what should be done with it. People are of course entitled
to<br>
their own opinions, but I don't think that all opinions on technical<br>
matters of fact ought to have equal standing. Hence Dave
Clark's<br>
famous adage about the IETF: "We reject: kings, presidents and
voting.<br>
We believe in: rough consensus and running code."<br><br>
> Given that 1Net is all about MSism:<br><br>
I have been a little frustrated by these threads about what
"MSism"<br>
is, and I have a sneaking suspicion that this is because it isn't
one<br>
thing. For instance, many people think ICANN, the IETF, and the
RIRs<br>
are multistakholder organizations. To the extent that is true,
it's<br>
revealing, because they work in very different ways. Most of the
RIRs<br>
have some notion of membership, usually relating to whether one
holds<br>
allocations from the region. Moreover, the RIRs are already<br>
implicitly tied to geography (itself a problematic notion on the<br>
Internet). ICANN has constituencies, and one nominally works
through<br>
those consituencies, though of course public comment is widely<br>
welcome. The IETF does not have formal consituencies or
membership,<br>
and anyone is welcome to comment on anything on the mailing list,
but<br>
one tends to be ignored if one's arguments don't get support or at<br>
least acknowledgement from others.<br><br>
What seems to me to be a common thread among these things, however,
is<br>
that the mechanisms are different adaptations to trying to get as
many<br>
relevant and informed opinions into the "tussle" about
tricky<br>
problems. In this sense, the precise definition is less important,
I<br>
think, than the style of working. So,<br><br>
> Those MS processes aren't about power, but largely about which
ideas<br>
> are better than others [�].<br><br>
I think this is wherre we should concentrate.<br><br>
Best regards,<br><br>
A<br><br>
-- <br>
Andrew Sullivan<br>
<a href="mailto:ajs@anvilwalrusden.com">ajs@anvilwalrusden.com</a><br>
<br><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" eudora="autourl">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br><br>
<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>