[governance] Interent community, internet users, and the people

Mon Apr 23 12:46:35 EDT 2007

Dear all,

To push Avir's comments a bit further, this touches upon the delicate issue
of representativity and accountability in multi-stakeholder processes. (Note
: what is below was written before Parminder's last post but it applies to
it as well).

What Parminder rightly raises is the need to take into account in any policy
discussion the potential impact on the present non-users and their
interests. And I do not think that anybody opposes that, including Jeremy.
The key question is how and to pick Parminder's comments : who "represents"
these interests ?

As Avri rightly said, the very fact that somebody intervenes on this list
(not only an Internet list, but one would say a rather specialized one :-)
means that, by definition, he/she is not a non-user.

This person cannot claim to represent the non-users in the representative
democracy sense, unless there is some sort of organization that has been set
up exclusively for the purpose of representing non-Internet users and can
transparently demonstrate a list of members. And even if such an
organization existed, with thousands of members, it could only
claim representing those thousands and not the 4 or 5 billion not yet
online. Without addressing the question of how to consult that community on
a five day's notice on a possible statement in a future IGF consultation
....;-)

But does represntative democracy need to be the model ?

I believe Parminder's approach in that debate should be analyzed
differently. In multi-stakeholder governance processes and policy
developments, stakeholders, and particularly NGOs or individuals do not
"represent" constituencies or groups of individuals in the representative
democracy sense of the term.

*Such advocates do not "represent" (ie speak "in place" or on behalf of)
somebody esle; they speak "in favor" of them.  They represent viewpoints and
interests, not people* so as to make sure that all facets of an issue are
taken into account. They give everybody a voice, not a vote. They actually
contribute to the definition of the best global interest on that issue.

This is why single individuals that can really contribute should be not only
allowed but welcomed into those processes. They may be disproportionately
useful as wompared with their "representativity". And of course, measures
should be taken to avoid that they are not disproportionately detrimental to
the process :-)

All in all, this is the core of the notion of stakeholdership : policy
development processes, when they deal with highly transversal, multi-layer
and non linear processes absolutely need to take into account all potential
impacts early on. And this is why the processes should be open to all actors
who have a direct stake in the issue or who want to contribute to highlight
the importance of a certain aspect. Advocacy NGOs can bring a useful
contribution in that respect, even if through a single person with wide
knowledge of the issue.

And this relates to accountability and transparency in at least two ways :
- when somebody intends to formally speak "in the name" of someone or some
group, transparency requires that this "mandate" is clear and that
instructions to that purpose have actually been given;
- when somebody participates in a formal decision, particularly through
voting, chains of accountability must be in place in each organization or
constituency.

But in the present decision-shaping processes on the contrary, all
contributions should be encouraged, on an equal footing, measured only by
their capacity to help define a better public interest. So Parminder plays a
perfectly legitimate role when he raises the question of how to take into
account the non-users. Because it is a key public policy dimension of a lot
of the issues we address.

This would be less the case if he implied that he represents 5 billion
people and others only specific interests. But I know he doesn't ;-)

Best

Bertrand

On 4/23/07, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 23 apr 2007, at 04.50, Parminder wrote:
>
> >
> >> My understanding of the
> >> Internet community is simply the community of Internet users.
> >
> > Good we got into this discussion, because too often you and I agree
> > on many
> > things on the IGC list :) but this shows how we disagree at more basic
> > levels. To illustrate by personal example, I myself have great
> > interest in
> > IG as you can see. I almost entirely speak for the interests for
> > the present
> > non-users (and some indirect users). So, if non-users aren't an
> > equally
> > legitimate constituency in IG, by your reckoning I just shouldn't
> > be here.
> > At the very least, this proves we have strong difference about what
> > we all
> > are doing in IG fora.
>
>
> i don't understand this.  and disagree with both of you, i think.
>
> i think there are many communities of interest and trying to abstract
> them all into one Internet Community is not necessarily helpful.
> there are several levels of affinity:
>
> - those professionals and amateurs who are involved in the
> development, care and feeding of the Internet - this is, I believe,
> the original referent of Internet Community
>
> - those who currently use the Internet - i think of these as the
> Internet User Community
>
> - those whom the Internet does not serve yet.  i am not sure what the
> right name for these people is, but they are perhaps the Future
> Internet Users community or as you say the non, or indirect, user
> community.
>
> Depending on the subject at hand, for example internet resources, we
> may have other groupings, e.g. the registrants who have name and
> address assignments.
>
> Each of these grouping has a different perspective on the network.  I
> do not mnimize the view of one versus the other and believe they are
> all stakeholders in the IG process, each from their own perspective
> and in their own role - one cannot expect someone who uses the
> Internet daily to have the same perspective as someone who has never
> even heard of the Internet.
>
> I think everyone on this list belongs, at least to the Internet User
> Community and some belong to the Internet Community.  I don't think
> any of us qualify for the third group, and while we may try to
> represent their interests from our privileged position (personally, i
> certainly try to for nomadic peoples who live in remote
> communications challenged areas) but we do not have their perspective
> and can not be said to be in the same affinity group except at such a
> level of abstraction - i.e. we are all people talking about the
> Internet - that it provides little information.
>
> a.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle

Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070423/32dda476/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070423/32dda476/attachment.txt>