[governance] The PROCESS of representation (Selecting a Speaker for IGF)

[Paul Lehto]

It's been wisely suggested that discussion of process here has been
lacking. Representation is a process. In most contexts, representation
(to be done well) is a full time professional job -- the job of
lawyer, advocate, lobbyist or guardian -- and requires a devotion to
the needs and views of those represented.  Because of the high calling
and difficulty, in most places the right to represent others is
forbidden to those who have not opted into a code of ethics, whether
that be the more stringent one of lawyers or less stringent ones for
lobbyists.

In all cases, however, the person or persons represented has the
ability to recall, or fire or terminate an agent that is not
representing them well. And, the representative is not within their
rights to speak their personal views, for then they are not truly
representing others.

I speak often in favor of affirmative action, but this does not seem
applicable very much  to the selection of a representative, because
their country of origin, race, gender and the like would be a personal
characteristic not at all guaranteeing they speak for others of the
same characteristics.  None of my comments are personal to any
nomination here but they do tend to apply to all:  We can find
corporate voice representatives in essentially any country, race or
gender.

To use my self as an example, what guarantee do I have that any
speaker will indeed speak for me?  Surely, my agreement with what's
said will exist only in parts - only certain highlights of the speech
would I silently cheer as I read or hear it.  Yet, if I am a "member"
of IGF (as many of you are) the speaker, whoever it is, will be in
some sense speaking for me, or for us.

No speaker is capable of speaking for this group on this issue given
the division of opinion, unless a more intensive process of
reconcilation took place, which seems unlikely to happen for reasons
of time.  And yet, surely the agenda will say something to the effect
that this speaker is a member of IGF or perhaps even speaking on
behalf of IGF.  Even a mere nomination suggests a limited approval by
IGF.  The speaker is thus faced with a nearly impossible task of
speaking for the group (either the IGF and/or the diverse
constituencies they are part of) and yet being unable to speak for the
group(s).

In terms of process, the only thing that can rescue this kind of
situation from emptiness is the ability of those "represented" to
approve or remove the speaker from their position.  An election that
creates a form of accountability that is the largest part of the
incentive for the speaker to engage in the intensive work necessary to
learn the voices of the people involved so they can do the best job
possible in representing those voices.

Once again, a process perspective takes us back to election as well as
a process of education prior to the election, as indispensably
necessary both to create a real representation, as well as a form of
accountability that helps guarantee both strong efforts on the part of
the representative speaker elected as well as a form of recourse if
the representative does not live up to the expectations at least of a
majority of those represented.

In terms of process for selecting a speaker, perhaps the most
important qualification in this group (in my mind) would be the amount
of time the person is able to put in to grasp all that has been said
here on the governance list, and a commitment to give voice to as much
of that as fairly as humanly possible.  Professional qualifications
and prior knowledge may make that preparation more efficient and
quicker, but would not substitute for a close reading of what the
group has said here on this list.   Even if the speaker has latitude
to speak from their own point of view, why would IGF send such a
person with IGF blessing if there wasn't an abiding interest in
everything IGF has to say on the subject of the speaker?

Representation is a form of legal agency, which requires the transfer
of an "authority" to speak for another individual or group.  All such
agencies are terminable at will.  Except where the members of NGOs can
remove via vote their officers or directors, there's no real
representation, authority or agency.  Even where this power exists,
the representation is strictly limited to voluntary members of that
NGO or nonprofit.  This creates a fatal problem for the inclusivity
and democracy of stakeholder-style organizations that, as I've
previously stated, prevents their "legitimacy" in a political sense.

An election of speaker is possible here though this is not my main
intent.  The underlying necessity is the most fundamental
qualification of a speaker or representative: How faithful will the
person be in giving effective voice to the views of this group?
Again, I have nobody personally in mind, and intend my comments to
apply to the process, and to all, equally.

Paul Lehto, J.D.
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t