Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits]

[jefsey]

On 23:36 13/11/2013, John Curran said:
>Agreed.  I believe that it is best to refer to "multistakeholder mechanisms"
>or "multistakeholder processes"... such that would equally suitable to having
>open and inclusive dialogues about any topic (e.g. climate change), while we
>just happen to use these multistakeholder mechanisms for the coordination of
>critical Internet identifiers.

Correct. I suggested that it is in polycracy what is equivalent to 
votes in democracy.
"We reject kings, presidents, and voting. We believe in rough 
consensus and running code" (David Clark).

>I think we agree, but I might reverse the causal aspects of the statement
>for clarity:  We commit to use multistakeholder mechanisms for coordination
>of technical aspects of the Internet, and do not presume their universal
>applicability in all matters Internet... i.e. sometimes the discussion of
>public policy matters as applied to the Internet may be facilitated via
>multistakeholder mechanisms (as we see with IGF), but that doesn't presume
>all such dialogues of Internet public policy must be done via multistakeholder
>mechanisms.

Incorrect. Internet as a meshed system calls for polycracy. This is 
fractal. Not to use an MS methode somewhere is like not using votes 
in a democractic environment. This is possible only when switching 
from politics to command.

> > A third way is to recognize that to all intents and purposes CS in its
> > current form in the IG is incapable of being an effective "stakeholder" and
> > accepting the implications of that for the overall MS model. The
> > implications of taking this latter position is that if an 
> adherence to MSism
> > is so important for various of the actors involved then some significant
> > efforts/resources will need to be put into making CS a workable, effective
> > and legitimate partner.

I am afraid there is a layer violation. The whole system is fractal 
(as being distributed) as being hierarchical in a decentralised 
context. CS is acknoweldged as a group of multiple stakeholders by 
the WSIS. It is to interact at that layer with Govs, Business and 
Multilateral. The I*Society is an US stakeholder enhanced cooperation 
between the US (led) industry and the USG over technical issues. This 
a kind of layer violation that want to make believe that it gathers 
all the technicians.

The CS is as diverse and as internally complex as the Governments MS 
Group (cf. the WCIT split), the business (cf. Internet leaders/Majors 
vs. standard businesses), and Multilateral (cf. ISO, ITU, IETF, 
IEEE). The real problem is that only a kind of CS partners is active. 
For example, religions are missings. This may ultimately lead to 
societal/cultural problems. As having successfully fought for 
multilinguiization (every language on an equal footing) against 
internationalization (every language on an equal footing provided it 
is English) at the IETF, I know about it.

jfc