[governance] methods was CSTD

[JFC Morfin]

At 21:35 23/05/2010, Avri Doria wrote:
>Hi,
>Part of the problem I have found in getting people to accept new 
>methods on a large scale is that most people are adverse to having 
>to learn something new.  Especially if learning the stuff they know 
>was hard work. Most adults just don't readily take to the role of 
>learners who have to ask questions and get help.
>
>Several studies, i would have to go digging for references, show 
>that people tend to accept new things that closely resemble old 
>things they already know how to do.
>so I am all for introducing new methods into producing decently 
>configured spaces, and have even put work into them on occasion, but 
>I still have not found the secret ingredient of getting people to 
>move beyond what they know.
>a.

This is correct from a personal usage point of view. However, the 
notion of consensus "decision" is sociologically controverted (vs. 
consensus uncovering) as this actually is consensually acceptable 
compromise. Anyway, the very notion of consensus or rough consensus 
(as in the IETF) is totalitarian (only one single "community correct" 
position is seeked to be favored/imposed). As such it is adequate to 
(de)centralized networking architectures where a single reference is 
preferable and should be "adopted". Peaceful agreements in the 
distributed reality of the world are actually based on 
multiconsensuses. They are the very basis of our social life and 
distributed relations and networks. This explains the technical 
inutility of the IGF, which results from its disrespect of the WSIS 
recommendations. WSIS called upon:

- consensus among the members of dynamic coalitions of interests, 
i.e. on the topic they internally discuss. Then on a consensus on the 
way these coalitions should interconsider the consensual suggestions 
from other dynamic coalitions of interworking interests,
- to permit the operational framework of operational enhanced cooperations.

We were to work on the enhanced cooperation concept from experience. 
As long there is one unique "enhanced cooperation" (or "financially 
oriented cooperation") under the form of the ISOCANN objective 
alliance, we have not experienced yet the true nature of the 
Internet, and what its Governance (or better, its "intergovernance") 
really is. The Internet and the Internet governance are certainly not 
the monolith that some try to make us accept. It is an interoperable 
diversity which has to perform, deploy and develop under a 
multiconsensual adminance (*), in tune with the multiconsensual 
intergovernance of the diversity of its utilizations.

The Internet is not something local one can "decide" about. It is 
something global one has to live with and influence (through those 
who design, use and manage it" RFC 3935). I accept that this is more 
difficult to commonly understand when the American and English/French 
meanings of the term "global" oppose ("the unique whole" in American, 
"the whole diversity set" in European).

Happily the size of the Internet is conceptually increasing "beyond" 
our globe (at least in terms of scale: from nano to space) and new 
terms have to be (have already been) found which make this clearer in 
such an exceptional context. Today, the Internet architecture (and 
therefore its adminance and governance) should be considered along 
its current description set formed by RFC 1958, RFC 3439 and 
IDNA2008. Many civil society issues would be more practically 
perceived, discussed and addressed, because they would be more in 
phase with what they discuss, and the users needs. Please note that 
these considerations are also the very basis of what I believe IETF 
(through IAB) is to review in response to the appeal I am forming, as 
they seem technically conflicting.

Best
jfc

(*) governance is about the policy on how people can use the Internet 
now, adminance is about the teleology and teleonomy influencing the 
way to administer, maintain and design it within the duration.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100524/97c30f5f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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