[bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

[michael gurstein]

McTim,

 

It seems to me we've had a similar discussion in the past.

 

What I understand from you below is that you are taking the experience/knowledge of the "classical" IETF MS process as the subject of my post.  In fact, as you know I know little about the "classical" MS processes.   Rather I am commenting on the way in which MSism has become a competing model/ideology of governance (widely expounded for broad policy application by the USG and its allies including here in CS)  to the conventional one based on democratic processes.

 

The connection between this MSism and the "classical" MSism is that by using the same name and some of the same elements those who are espousing the MSist ideology are able to draw on the wide acceptance and respect for the classical MSist processes including dare I say having access to a fairly large and highly vocal set of supporters such as yourself.

 

As well, without knowing in any detail I would be extremely surprised if those who worked in/with classical MSist processes saw them, as having a broad base of legitimacy in self-selecting elite driven non-democratic “stake”holder societal decision making/governance as appears to be the basis of the current MSist model and as I discuss in the blogpost.

 

M

 

-----Original Message-----
From: dogwallah at gmail.com [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] On Behalf Of McTim
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 5:57 AM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: Anne Jellema; Norbert Bollow; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; JNC Forum
Subject: Re: [bestbits] Time-sensitive: 24 hour sign on period for ITU Plenipot joint recommendations

 

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:20 AM, michael gurstein < <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com> gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

> Since I'm not discussing "how inter-networking has been cooperatively coordinated"

 

You most certainly are.

 

There are certainly different flavors of MSism, so the MSism of the IETF or the RIRs is certainly different than the MSism of ICANN which is also not the same as the MSism practiced by the IGF.

 

I'm not sure how whether I understand this or that makes any difference here.  If you take a look at my blog both the current post and several of the earlier ones you will see my argument that MSism is being presented as a form of global governance in competition with democratic governance.

 

I have read them and understand your position.  I just don't buy it, as it does not describe my experiences of the last 15 years.

 

 

  While it may have its roots in various aspects of Internet development MSism's ambitions (through its proponents) are very much beyond that.

> 

> Good to hear that you are not in agreement with Milton's definition, perhaps you would be willing to offer an alternative.

 

 

My disagreement with MM is that "private sector" led.  He may mean by that private non-profits, but to my mind the Internet coordination community is a Civil Society exercise, not Private Sector (how I understand the term) led.

 

 

> 

> And glad to hear that you have a belief in democracy as the 

> "foundation of governance in the Internet

 

My belief is that people can exercise direct democracy in Internet Governance without being represented.  People are quite capable of representing themselves.

 

This is the way it has worked for the last 40 years.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20141023/d6eb370d/attachment.htm>