Re: [ga] Re: 'stakeholders'
Dear Joop and Richard, I am afraid that what I explained to Jeff is verified. It takes time before people accept the obvious they describe. Sometimes as explained to Eric it calls for a Revolution. At 06:08 12/08/03, Joop Teernstra wrote: At 01:05 p.m. 12/08/2003, J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: Yes. This is why Democracy started from the transition from monologue of the leader (or tyran) to some people dialog on the Agora (or in PowWow or in Wise Men meeting in Africa, or in Gens or Clan meetings in Europe, etc.). Then the dialog progresseivly went to the entire world, including recently enough women (yet children rights are not yet taken into account very often), and this way gained every part of the societal life. Permitting a democratic subsidiarity and a social granularometry we never met before, world wide. And this is why the same as leadership stays in corporations, army, church, family... and ICANN :-), democracy will stay in subsidiary groups like countries, cities, school parent association, etc... But today globla competence and density have lead polylog to take over significatly: polycracy is the de facto leading governance system of our world. This is an equivalent change in society as he first Mesopotamian cities, and the Greek Athen. But it takes time to sociolog and politolog to understand it, the same as to techies to understand the leadership of the brainware.
- those who do not understand and stick to what was leading before and must adapt to become only a building block of the new reality: the indegrists. They help may help in keeping real. - those who dream the new reality rather than they observe it, who propose their own utopic schemes: many names were used for them, progressists, modernists, utopists. They help in making things move. - those who want to take advantage from the change to their own advantage. The opportunists. But mainly what has always delayed humanity are incompetence and ignorance. This time it is more true because the polylog system is by nature based upon a new need: intelligence. We have not entered an Information Society: this is by nature the human society. We have entered the Intelligent society. Intelligence to learn and understand. But more, intelligence in being interknowing (as in "in good intelligence") among people interrelating together (brainware). Our society also results into a society of Services to support this human interaction. Of Extended Services able to intelligently support our relation continuities (one of them can be real time permanent secure voting for those interested - and more important than voting : doocumented opposing). Autocracy, Democracy, Polycracy are not competing systems but complemntary layered systems. They oppose when they are used in place of the other. Control is when the upper layer is used in the place of the lower layer (autocracy in a democratic area, democracy in a polycratic area). Opression when Autocracy is used where Polycracy should apply. Destabilization when Polycracy is used in a demoratic field or democracy where autocracy should be used. Anarchy is when policracy isused when autocracy should be used. These are intuitive rules that any ruler or revolutionary intuitevely know quite well (desinformation, influence, infiltration, manipulation, etc. are based on them). Obvioulsy, all this obviously has sub-levels (aligarchy, plotocracy, mafia, junta, etc.) ... and subvesions. But let not confuse the patient and the illness. Today imposing democracy to the internet polycracy is the way the oligarchy (stakeholders autocracy) found as the best way to control it nad to derail polycratic efforts such as @large. A practical method of doing it is to call for a way to verify voters that no one will ever have to solve, for the simple reason that polycracy does not directly vote. Autocracy is usually based upon acclamation and unanimity (we recall the USSR votes). Democracy is usually based upon a majority vote (but had to work hard to include women and has not yet integrated children). Polycracy seem to be based upon consensus. Ask IETF or ITU if they votes :-) Bytes can use TCP/IP by decision of 61.52% of the ITEF Members .... We all know from experience that our more autocratic members are those with the highest difficulties to undersand what a consensus might be. Also that our Democrintegrists are suspicious and tend to confuse consensus with 2/3 votes in reportng the consensus, or as an evil solution by ICANN (which has certainly _abused_ the concept the same as it abused votes). In acclamation what count is that every one supports, in votes that there are more people who support that there are people who object. In consensus that no one seriously objects. In acclamations we only need to know they are no spy. In votes we need to know there is no clones. In consensus we need to know if every possible opponent is here. The only way that makes sense to everyone (except to the ICANN Board) is one-registrant/person-one -vote. This smell demoractic, but is the most autocratic (oligarchic) and anti-democractic statement. - autocratic because you are interested in the registrants and you want your group of influence leads the show. - anti-democratic because no one knows who a registrant is (registrant of what? domain name? mail name? which level? which registry? ....). To be demoratic (and practically absurd) you would need to say firist "every man his e-name (hence for free) and free aliases" - what I claim and document for 25 years (because it is the only way for the system to work) but I never heard you to ask. Just think over it. The day you - among all due to your personal charisma et volunteering - understand that, may be the Internet Community - and the world - will have made a small step ahead, probably more important that the one of Borman. jfc
|