[iucg] What is MSism?

[Jefsey <[e-mail]>]

The first question should be "what is MSism". I have posted this 
definition and its comparison with polycracy. I am surprised by the 
resulting general agreement (no one opposed). I therefore copy it to 
some other mailing lists, so we have a common working basis.

----

MSism, as we hear of it, is shaped from Doug Engelbart's 
(<http://www.dougengelbart.org/about/dce-bio.html>http://www.dougengelbart.org/about/dce-bio.html) 
concepts. It is a diktyarchy (from diktyos: network) i.e. an 
intergovernance between peer structured autoselected entities. The 
autoselection process is based upon the time network/global 
availability, i.e. the capacity to collectively meet on a mailing 
list and anytime anywhere. This is to produce the buzz that will 
exceed the noise of reality and the squawk of the multitude. It is to 
polycracy the equivalent of monarchy to democracy. Technically, MS 
proceeds from a root/server/client hierarchic model (however its 
slogan is "on an equal footing" [for the leaders only, cf. RFC 6852, 
Montevideo statement], while polycracy proceeds from a "master and 
master" open capability model.

The difficulty in the extension from democracy to polycracy is that 
diktyarchy looks democratic to the onlooker: democracy is about 
decision decentralization; MSism keeps that decision decentralization 
within its political, business, and societal structures that dialogue 
together. Polycracy is actually about decision distribution among 
political, business, and societal individuals who multilogue together 
in any manner they wish and decide by themselves.

This is why MSism is a method to deploy "reasonable" decisions 
collectively agreed among mutually accepted 
share/status/stake-holders, while polycracy is the autopoietic 
emergence of the life of the multitude through individual considered 
decisions. Both systems are adapted to our time. MSism is selected 
network centric, and polycracy is people centered.

In MSism, structures (states and corporates) ally to govern the 
"others", i.e. the WSIS definition of the "civil society", and 
sponsor politically acceptable civil society structures. It is an 
interesting concept by its "mid-up/down" practical capacities of 
substitution: it is alliances centered. In its own turn, polycracy 
accepts substitution but only in its normal role of substitution of 
subsidiarity: it is people centered.

What is at stake in here for the Internet Governance is the virtual 
world built as an ICANN contractual diktyarchy vs. a real world that 
will progressively erode the NTIA leadership in an operational 
polycracy. The real question is about whether this evolution will 
occur in the most seamless way possible, in the best respect of the 
"digility" (from digital personality) of everyone.

This is why I propose to start from what we know, as the WSIS has 
advised. If we proceed from the person ("centrada en la persona" says 
the Spanish version of the WSIS declaration) entering the digisphere, 
i.e. the digitally split vision of its environmental reality, and 
considers its digital rights. We can pursue with the inviolability of 
people's "digicile" (digital-domicile: using simple, clear, 
universally understandable notions extending our daily life in the 
digisphere through direct metaphors can only help). From there we can 
then proceed and differentiate what belongs to physical government, 
ethical behavior, and digital governance.