<html>
<body>
At 10:17 03/08/2013, parminder wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Maybe those who are opposed to
such a top-down imposition can write to the IGF secretariat and the MAG
about it....</blockquote><br>
Dear Parminder,<br><br>
How can we practically reconcile "democracy" with the concept
of a discussion with a <u>secretariat</u> and an <u>advisory</u> group?
The authoritative entity of the IGF is the IGF itself, comprising four
stakeholder parties, each with their own culture and governance, to serve
the project of a people centered Information Society. This IGF by nature
and essence is what each stakeholder class, dynamic coalition, enhanced
cooperation, and person brings to it. This is why I prefer to speak of
polycracy; a democracy for all the stakeholders in a concerting world
based on multi-consensus rather than votes (ex. IETF: "We reject
kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running
code").<br><br>
Due to a thousand years of hysteresis, we continue to pay special
attention to the UN and Govs. Remember that the WSIS is all about paying
also as much attention to CS and Corporations, along with their own
cultures and processes. The Civil Society and Private sector cultures and
processes are NOT those of the UN and Govs. We do NOT have to mimic them;
otherwise, it will be a disservice to all the stakeholders. We need to be
ourselves. RFC 6852 shows how the contribution of the professional
Internet and computer areas (Private sector) intends:<br>
- to harness these increasing opportunities today for all the
peoples and for [] inclusive global communit|ies] that were
unimaginable only a few years ago.<br>
- and to support their further development and progress (cf. Tunis
Agenda).<br><br>
We have <br>
- (1) to do the same in the Civil Society area.<br>
- (2) to contribute with the other stakeholders and their conclusions
(their responses to the Tunis agenda) to make it a joint
multistakeholder's move.<br><br>
IMO, this should help the IGF to be a tool of real use and utility for
everyone. It could then probably lead to:<br>
- (1) a yearly meeting that would be called in cooperation with its
Secretariat, and advised by the MAG<br>
- (2) an open contribution "Wikigf", <br>
- (3) an "RFC4D editor" - comparable to the IETF RFC
editor.<br>
- (4) and a common "nethiquette", as a "BCP4D"
striving to respect the WSIS people centered architectonic esthetic, of
which the first section would enlarge the meaning of the
"Internet" word to the "Multitechnology/multilinguistic
Digisphere International Networks". Among others things, such a
nethiquette resulting from a de facto global multiconsensus would
document and maintain how the Wikigf and RFC4D editor would
function.<br><br>
This certainly is something that a few of us could manage to organize, as
it only is a response and continuation of the work of everyone for
years.<br><br>
<a name="_GoBack"></a>Best,<br>
jfc<br>
</body>
</html>