Honestly… that’s not really a lot to imagine. Much about “who works” in gov is a mishmash of reactions and behaviors (eh “culture”) that could very easily fit the definition of an “un-owned, open protocol”)…

…every governing action visible to all doesn’t change the needle. “Every governing action made visible and relevant to the capacity of the governed” does…

…having said that, who establishes the boundaries of the protocols? I don’t mean W3C-like, I mean NIST like? Is there enough within the commons of whatever those protocols are to (a) be visible and (b) be relevant to all? There isn’t currently… hence why we have the regulations, credentialing, and insurances we do, right?

…we say “an algorithm establishes the boundaries” and that’s fine? Onto what software? Did an algorithm also dictate the platform it sits on, the metals it was hewn from, the livelihoods of those folks at the very beginning of *that* which enabled the making of something to actually perform the thing which made a bit?

Sorry, getting aggressive. Let me pull back some…

If I imagined such a thing, it would be a culture who then told stories to one another. Those stories, how and who tells them would be the understanding of what it means to be governed. The quality (?) of the story will indicate who tried to control what. The delivery would inform what was manipulated, or intended to be. The ability to communicate throughly will be esteemed… making art as important as form. And what would fail would be the same as what fails governing now… a mishmash of reactions and behaviors, and those astute enough to perceive those will compelling others with better stories.