[governance] Multistakeholderism

JFC Morfin jefsey at jefsey.com
Sat May 3 22:45:05 EDT 2014 

Dear Deirdre,

your concern is legitimate. The response is very simple. IG is a 
political issue. Politics as per Aristotle is the art of commanding 
free men. We are in the middle of a "singularity",. Raymond Kurzwell 
(Google) believes that this is when machines will start replacing 
people. It is more probably a big change in the human society: 
politics is now the arts of commanding free digitaly networked men.

This creates new additional business and power opportunities we are 
not yet used to. They challenge market shares and established 
sovereignties, but open new frontiers. This is why there are two 
strategies to respond this singularity: we are in the process of 
switching from the first to the second one.

1. "status-quo": one tries to keep things unchanged to protect the 
old equilibrium in constraining innovation. This is the strategy of 
the established dominants: M$, Telcos, etc. supported by the USG 
executive branch (NTIA), i.e. international relations.

2. "internationalization": one tries to "internationalize" the new 
territories' legal, contractual, conventional, etc. environment. This 
is another term for "e-colonization". This is the strategy of the 
emerging edge providers new dominants. Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc.

The transition from status-quo to internationalization has been 
supported since 1977 by the USG (FCC, NTIA). It has entered in a new 
phase of its strategic evolution toward the legal branch, the US 
globality switch from international to domestic affairs.

The problem is that the world is not yet fully ruled by the Congress 
along a democratic process. An "international domestic virtuality" 
democratic substitute had to be found. This is "multistkeholderism". 
It puts e-colonized-States and Edge-Providers on a legal footing 
basis. This is the TPP/TAFTA core idea: an US lawyer panel can 
arbitrate between US TNC (transnational corporation) and States of 
the "international domestic virtuality" when their democratic 
legislations are hurting their interests. The people of the world 
must pay their democacy to the US TNCs.

You bet that at this political level, no one is interested in knowing 
what people (those unable to engage into a class-action) may think, 
and dominants are only interested in keeping the others quite. This 
is the purpose of lists such /1net: to make their participants 
believe they are important, pay them to attend useless meeting round 
the world, etc. so they cooperate, in order to prevent at leas two 
problems from happening.

These two problems are that the Emperor is not only naked but also 
not an emperor.

1. he is not an emperor. The Emperor wants to "be unilateraly 
global". This is a "bug". No one can be the center of the entire 
world. Only the Emperor of China believed he was.

2. he is naked because, if his law may induce code, code becoms law. 
Code is the clothes. The Emperor wants to make believe he controls 
the code (e.g. the root). But the network code is designed by 
engineers for those who need it.

There are two resulting tactics to control code:

1. to make States believe they do not need alternative code (ICANN/GAC)
2. to delay prevent the Multitude (the not yet marketingly brain 
washed people) from demanding and using such alternative code. This 
is done by story telling (e.g. need of a unique root - countered by 
ICANN's own ICP3 document), "internet balkanization" to describe 
resistance to e-colonization, etc. Now it is filtering alternative 
credible propositions (such as VGN analysis).

In this context, you bet that nobody cares about who is a 
"stakeholder". There are market share holders (edge providers), state 
holders (NTIA, EU, China, Russia), internet structural status holders 
(RIRs), technical rights holders (IETF Trust) and net holders (ISP, 
Telcos). Period, never mind about users: they only are those who pay 
and buy: making them to believe they are stakeholder will only make 
them to chant the beauties of MSism and help e-colonizing.

However, there is a still small  irritating  irruptive group: the 
independent users (IUsers) who know how an intelligent use (IUse) of 
the interneted (protocols) catenet (global network system) can keep 
them independent, i.e. free from the Emperor, because they know that 
he is stark naked.  The priority is to prevent them to get an 
audience. Then all the old political tricks are good enough. (e.g. 
"alliance.fsp4 at gmail", the MS collective mail address of the young 
initiative for a "fail-secure plan for the net" is denied 
subscription to the /1net and NTIAtransition lists.

After all, these people oppose ICANN. What is mean is that ICANN only 
disregards the registrations (automatically?) instead of plainly 
responsibly rejecting it. The Emperor fakes that he does not hear 
those who tell he is naked.

jfc



At 22:00 03/05/2014, Deirdre Williams wrote:

>I feel a little as if I were in Hans Andersen's 
>“<http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html>The 
>Emperor's New Clothes” story. So let me take on the role of the 
>little child near the end of the story who said "But he hasn't got 
>anything on."
>
>Internet governance, as far as I am concerned, is an issue of global 
>concern. It is too far-reaching in its effects to be limited to any 
>one sector of the global community. I understand multistakeholder to 
>offer greater inclusion, or, since I find myself using the 
>comparative “greater” without being clear about “greater than 
>what?”, then I understand multistakeholder to be a precaution 
>against limitation to a single sector. Multistakeholder means that 
>many different voices, with many different opinions, will be heard.
>
>However everyone seems to have a different answer to “what is a 
>stakeholder?” and to the issue of whether stakeholders are:
>
>a) groups
>
>b) individuals or
>
>c) a combination of both
>
>Does anyone here have an answer, and if c), how is an equitable 
>balance of power to be achieved?
>
>
>
>Also three terms seem to be used interchangeably in discussion:
>
>a) multistakeholderism
>
>b) multistakeholder model
>c) multistakeholder process I would like to know about the process 
>as it refers to decision making. I followed the Netmundial meeting 
>as a remote participant. The final decision making process had no 
>remote access, so I am unable to comment on it.  However, earlier 
>today in a message to the governance list (et alia) in the thread 
>“Roles and Responsibilities” Wolfgang Kleinwachter, discussing 
>multistakeholderism and democracy, stated “ And Net Mundial has 
>produced another - probably the most advanced so far - model. 
>Important is that you have - as in the case of represenative 
>democracy - some cirteria so that you can measure the level of 
>democracy/multistakeholderism.” But what are these criteria? In 
>the same message Kleinwachter offers:Â  In a democracy it is the 
>separation of powers with an independent judiciary, independent 
>press and a working parliament with a strong recognized opposition. 
>In multisakeholderism it is transparency, openess, accountability, 
>bottom up policy development, shared decision making, decentralization etc.
>
>So what in fact is the actual process of "shared decision making? 
>How is it done and how is that particular way of doing it 
>“better”? And what about the actual process of "bottom up policy 
>development"? How is it more than standing in line to speak at an 
>open microphone?
>
>I should really like to know, and I'm hoping to hear from several 
>people so that I can learn from the whole range of views in one place.
>
>Thank you
>
>Deirdre
>
>--
>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir 
>William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979Â
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140504/7fc2cba2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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

More information about the Governance mailing list