In fact, I believe that "protocol power" is the precise opposite of multistakeholderism where MSism is always and necessarily ad hoc, temporary, localized and where "showing up" (with the resources and staying power to keep showing up) is the source of power in a MS environment.
"Protocol power" is fixed, static and generalized (globalized)--think the rule of law rather than the outcome of a continuing series of ad hoc negotiations among multiple disconnected stakeholders. M -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of André Rebentisch Sent: January 31, 2017 12:43 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: <nettime> Protocols and Crises The more common match term for "protocol power" as coined by the abstract seems to be the anglo-saxon "multistakeholderism" governance model. It is deeply embedded in their political culture. I assume it stems from a more corporatist past. <...> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected] # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
