AW: [governance] PINGO

[Jefsey]

At 20:51 12/05/2014, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
>To reach rough consensus means that there are many parties which did 
>not get what they wanted.

Wolfgang,

I suggest we work first on a more precise terminology concerning what 
is called "multistakeholderism", French names "concertation", and I 
identify more precisely as a multitude's polycratic decision process. 
As an example the term "rough concensus" is totally inadequate as 
being out of scope. A rough concensus is evaluated by a Chair and 
subject to an appeal procedure. When you talk about rough concensus 
you are therefore assuming the Chair's role, what is legitimate since 
it is your own evaluation, but an evaluation is not a decision. Then, 
the following debate can be assimilated to an appeal procedure, which 
has no conclusion.

All what can be said is that you evaluate degrees of active and 
passive convergence and divergence of which the short, mid and long 
term metrics could be some effects to be described (i.e. achievements).

1. For example, you discern an achievement which is the "naming 
shaming": this is something tangible which has to be propragated.
2. I discern an other achievement which is a clarifying failure. They 
have not collectively understood yet that the internet is no more for 
everyone (ISOC Vint Cerf's RFC 3271), but as Gene Gaines puts it: it 
IS everyone.

This has a triple immediate impact.

1. That politics as per the prevaling Aristotle's definition *was* 
the art of commanding free people. Politicians in Sao Paulo have 
failed to acknowledged that politics, i.e. their job, is now the art 
of commanding free connected people. This disqualify these 
politicians as the leaders of our world digital ecosystem (WDE).
2. That "connected" means "both ways" and "meshed". Man is now a 
seven senses liberated social animal, meaning that "hub and spoke" 
networking and multistakeholderism as advocated are not a progress 
but a regression. This also disqualifies the merchants who want to 
flood our networks from the gates of their edges.
3. That postponing the "neutrality" issue (the only actually new 
result of Sao Paulo) means that they accept that in our today's world 
some digitalities (as the digital face of the persons) are more equal 
than others what is the negation of both people's democracies and 
multitude's polycracy.

I am afraid that on such premises we cannot build anything stable 
yet. A lot of understanding, comprehending, and testing work still 
seems necessary?
jfc






-------------- 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