[governance] multistakeholderism

[JFC Morfin]

At 00:51 23/08/2010, Paul Lehto wrote:
>Seeing that we agree on the most important point *Your E-colonization
>appears equivalent in essence to my "acid test for freedom".  the bulk
>of the rest is mostly to the benefit of additional perspective (ir
>difference therein) or experience, or addition of new angles or
>insights.

Correct. This is why I believe this can be an area of research.

>Although you say you derive your fundamental principles from different
>sources (internet binary "code" vs. legal "code") the way I 'hear'
>what you're saying about the universal principles of the internet is
>highly suggestive (to me) that your keen observations about the HUMAN
>intelligence and creativity and behavior on the internet or in
>relation to it is a language you can expertly read into evidence of
>human nature, etc.

Correct. The difference is that your source leads you to write in 
plain legal texts, while mine is to write it in plain standardization 
text, i.e. high-level binary code. Since it is about the same matter 
and that reticular writting is currently taking the lead on document 
writting, I suggest that more transdisciplinarity is advisable.

>  That may not be the most global and precise
>summary of your position, but the point I'm leading to stands
>nevertheless, I think, especially since I've grounded it in my own
>personal feeling!  :) And that is that you observe natural justice and
>its corruptions via the most salient aspects of the internet, and I
>observe them through not so much law (although that's included) but
>political theory and philosophy on the nature of Aristotle's "politcal
>animal" as "updated" by the ages.  But, if true, then that means that
>we are aiming for the same star as our guide, and even though we
>expect not to reach that guidestar, like a mariner without the stars
>(compass and astrolabe) we would be lost indeed without the star to
>give us direction.

Except that I am a seaman and I do prefer feeling the hull of my 
cybship bold and stable under my shoes :-)

>And that "star" is very near the following, perhaps the shortest
>illustration of what I think democracy "means" but clearly that word
>has too much baggage for some discussions because too many crimes have
>been committed in the name of democracy. (I always separate the idea
>from its imperfect implementations or corrupt implementations, as you
>might expect).

Yes. This is why I think the term "polycracy" is the correct word to 
use, which involves the person at the core, its respect, democracy 
and intergovernance capacities at its periphery.  Actually, polycracy 
is the democacy of the universal aristocracy we build.

>FWIW I'm a former lawyer (best kind) and I don't defend legal
>monopolies or co-optation by the law of terms like NN and mis-defining
>them in legislation to confuse and monkeywrench the whole thing, by
>accident or intention....

I understand. I consider lawyers as engineers. This is all the more 
true when we migrate to artificial semantic processors to assist our 
personnal HSSP (Homo Sappiens Semantic Processor) and in the process 
to still learn more about ourselves. However,
- all of us should be transdiciplinarians if to understand, know and 
comprehend the world.
- juges of our legal disputes will more and more be true machines (at 
least the Juges' facilitation processors).

>At the same time, it borders on or is
>foolhardy to ignore lawyers when thinking or acting about law, just as
>in ignoring accountants about accounting or developers and programmers
>about the internet.

This is why the 31st article should be written by the people (as RFC 
3935 about the IETF mission states: "The Internet is a global 
phenomenon.  The people interested in its evolution are from every 
culture under the sun and from all walks of life."). But edited by 
semantician lawyers to be applied by semantic processors supporting 
Human Free Will.

>Every profession thinks itself the center of the universe.

The WSIS (which legitimated this dynamic coalition and gave it its 
road map), considers that people are the center of the Universe, in 
their diversity. Something, out of Einstein cosmological principle, 
we made carved in RFCs now.

>I've pasted in that brief exchange about the acid test for freedom
>below.  As long as we retain nonviolent methods

- this really depends on our speed in addressing the people real 
needs. The financial crisis, the job current mismanagement, etc. do 
not make me optimistic the people will have the time to accept the 
necessary evolutions.

>of "kicking the bums
>out" and it's one person one vote

- too limited as a conception. Not easy to work out. However, today 
one person one vote is a democratic concept, not a democratic 
practicality without an equal education. Votes should probably be 
differently cast, depending on the voter's related awareness (as a 
protection against non-democratic manipultations). This is nothing to 
do with "one person one vote", but with the increased complexity of 
what one is asked to vote for: people, decision, choices, 
area/scopes, etc. Often responses are correct but undecipherable 
because questions are not. This is self-destroying.

>  and no adults are disfranchised,

This is anti-democratic!!! Everyone is a person and kids should vote 
by proxy. Most of the decisions affect their whole life while they 
only affect the end of the voters life.

>then that to me is what I'm thinking of when I say "democracy" and the
>corruptions of democracy are no different (to me) in general nature
>than someone committing a crime and claiming the Pope ordered him to
>do it via his radio.
>
>Like you said, don't interpret your comments as opposition, and so I
>don't.  You probably know that this way I will think about them longer
>than if that were not the case!  ;)

The real issue is that more and more we have to take decisions no one 
knows about the result. Democracy cannot help in such cases, so 
democracies rely on "experts". This is wrong because giving the most 
important adminance decisions to experts makes the world environment 
decided by engineers.

Look. Introducing the subsidiarity principle and changing the nature 
of the Internet, freeing the world from the operational control of 
who "runs the net" was practically a very very limited decision. It 
was to say that the use or non-use of the arabic Tatweel 
non-character (it is used for justification) was decided by the 
Internet side or the User side of the software being used. One single 
line of code apart. On the Internet side, the world was American, on 
the user side the world was free. It took ten years to make it an 
RFC. This detail hides ten years of work, fight, evangelization, 
market consideration, technical threads. In this endeavor we were 
supported by a very few humanist engineers and teachers. By no-one 
else. It will take years more and the support of a larger number for 
making it an accepted reality. If I now created my own research 
adventure, it only is for our work to stay in the public domain and 
not be copyrighted by the lawyers of the EISOCANN 
enhanced-cooperation (IETF Trust by ISOC).

>On 8/22/10, JFC Morfin <jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> >>[Lehto]The acid test is how do We the people (or netizens) "kick the bums
> >>out" who are governing the internet in our name?   THis is also the
> >>acid test of freedom, because any people that cant' remove the powers
> >>that be are NOT free, they're totally subject to the will of "another"
> >>-the definition of a political slave.
> >
> > [JFC Mortin]  :-) This is something as I keep refering to as 
> "e-colonization" under
> > the US e-umbrella. Some have engaged in drastic move against their
> > perceived roots of colonization, i.e. corruption. I feel that if we
> > do not defuse this Spartacus revolt, it may contaminate the entire
> > world, without much a result as the true solution is to by-pass
> > corruption. The technological tools we now have may help (because
> > technical standards work the same for all) because corruption is the
> > failure of the law. BTW, this is why making NN a legal issue is dead-end.

I add that this does not preclude NN to be legally defined. However, 
NN is about the way to build, operate and use bits. Bit is the basic 
element of the universe. Law is its ultimate discovery.

jfc  

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t