<html>
<body>
I suppose it is time to merge MSims posts into a dedicated thread. I
relate it to
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW_-_Multi-stakeholderism">
http://iucg.org/wiki/IUWW_-_Multi-stakeholderism</a>.<br><br>
Perhaps – reviewing the BestBits mails raises the question – we have to
decide sometimes if we are on the policy makers or on the legislators’
side. I feel like I have been on the environment builders’ side for
nearly four decades. This might help in our understanding one
another.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">At 09:08 17/10/2013, Avri Doria
wrote:<br>
I think that one reason the form of participatory democracy we are
calling multistakeholderism (MSism) is not uniform in that there are many
ways in which it can be expressed.<b></blockquote><br>
</b>I fully agree with what Avri says on the practical aspects. However,
I disagree on her target. The target is not to describe what the word may
designate along different perspectives, but rather to focus on the basic
concept. This should not be a political opinion debate but rather a
metalinguistic scientific synthesis. <br><br>
What I observe is the origin of the laws. They may be by:<br>
* decrees in monarchies. <br>
* votes in democracies. <br>
* now they are also made by multistakeholderist processes. This is why it
calls for the definition of an additional societal environment that I
call polycracies.<br><br>
I also observe that:<br>
* if these three environments are confronted with corruption, usages
(common practices), and nature (science),<br>
* polycracies seem to emerge with data technologies and the well-known
puzzling and disturbing, yet widely confirmed "code is law" of
Dr. Lessig's legal adage.<br><br>
This is why we most probably cannot seriously discuss/theorize
multistakeholderism out of the discretization, agorics, and discernment
foundamental issues that rock our lives and that we are just trying to
decidedly ignore, sometimes explore, or often ward off the
consideration.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Note: I would make the point
that it is even harder to define civil society than it is to define
MSism. but given that I self identify as a member of both civil
society and the technical community, I strongly agree about the
commonality of many goals.<b></blockquote><br>
</b>Is not Civil Society by the WSIS default definition what does not
feel like government, business, and multilateral? <br><br>
My own point will be: I have no idea of what the technical community can
be! <br>
- General Keith Alexander (head of NSA and US Cyber Command)
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_B._Alexander">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_B._Alexander</a> <br>
- RFC 6852, <br>
- ITU<br>
- IUCG<br>
illustrate that there actually are technical communities in each main
stakeholder group.<br><br>
- General Alexander, as every military in the world, obeys a mission,
along a national doctrine, in following a strategy in order to protect
his country and fellow citizens. The cyber context extended this mission,
doctrine, and strategy to precaution and, therefore, involves interior,
exterior, and ulterior threats and theaters.<br><br>
- The bodies that endorse RFC 6852 clearly signified (1) they are on the
business economic side (what may not be the case of their members) (2)
they do not intend anymore to take part in the architectonical debate
(what are the founding architectural options and how the technology is to
be societally adopted: they now consider that it has already been decided
by fostering competition to satisfy market and consumer needs driven by
economic forces). Esthetical, ethical, architectonical, political,
scientific, legal, and cultural debates are beyond their involvement
area. I suppose they believe that they resulted in economic
trends.<br><br>
- ITU's International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), serve as the
binding global treaty designed to facilitate international
interconnection and interoperability of information and communication
services, as well as ensuring their efficiency and widespread public
usefulness and availability. <br><br>
- only Civil Society has not really engaged (except through the not much
attended IUCG
<a href="http://iucg.org/wiki">http://iucg.org/wiki</a><a name="_GoBack">
</a> liaison with the IETF and ITU) any technical communitarian
effort.<br><br>
jfc<br>
</body>
</html>