[governance] The PROCESS of representation (Selecting a Speaker

[Paul Lehto]

My primary purpose below was to connect representation and
stakeholderism using the  example at hand of selecting a speaker.  My
intent is to make a point of more lasting relevance than the speaker
issue, but as to speakers I note that Ginger perfectly captures the
paradoxical task of speaker selection, saying in the same email that
"speakers we norminate will speak on their own behalf" and also that
they should not only be a "good speaker" but also "represent our
general values."  The word "represent" here is the exception that
swalls the 'rule' of merely "speak on their own behalf."

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On 8/20/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Paul and all,
> As I understand it, the speakers we nominate will speak on their own behalf,
> not 'for' the IGC. We are suggesting possibilities for CS speakers, not
> asking that they speak 'for the IGC'.
>
> We would try to choose speakers who are representative of voices in CS and
> the IGC, and Bill makes some good more specific points as well, in reference
> to the IGF. I think nominees' bios and background are important, because
> they give us an idea if we think they will be a good speaker, and represent
> our general values.
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
>
> Thanks for the input.
> Best,
> Ginger
>
> On 8/20/2010 11:42 AM, Paul Lehto wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
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