<html>
<body>
Dear Seun,<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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. <br><br>
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.<br><br>
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<br><br>
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? <br><br>
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).<br><br>
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. <br><br>
Best.<br><br>
M G<br><br>
At 08:22 06/05/2014, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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.<br>
For me I am not against using multiple email, but I am against using
multiple identities by one person.<br><br>
Cheers!<br><br>
sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 6 May 2014 02:50, "Michel Gauthier"
<<a href="mailto:mg@telepresse.com">mg@telepresse.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>At 22:12 05/05/2014, Brian E Carpenter wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Indeed. And one-person one-name seems to be a vital rule to avoid
falsifying the debate.<br><br>
</dl><br>
<dd>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?<br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>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<br><br>
<dd>M G <br><br>
<dd>_______________________________________________<br>
<dd>discuss mailing list<br>
<dd><a href="mailto:discuss@1net.org">discuss@1net.org</a><br>
<dd>
<a href="http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss" eudora="autourl">
http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss</a><br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>