Re: whose interests?

[Jim Dixon <jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net>]

On Sun, 15 Feb 1998, Kent Crispin wrote:

> > Your notion of representation is quite interesting and perhaps revealing. 
> > It would of course be applauded by authoritarians of all types: dictators,
> > oligarchs, religious zealots.  All claim to represent without consent,
> > to have a natural right to speak for the ignorant and unenlightened.
> > 
> > You claim that ISOC is representative not only without any form of 
> > consent from those being represented, not only without their knowledge
> > of their being represented, but even without their knowledge of the
> > possibility of their being represented.  This is simply ludicrous.
> 
> You seem to have a little trouble with this -- perhaps an example 
> will help:  The American Kidney Foundation can *accurately* be said to 
> represent Americans with Kidney disease, even though most such 
> people are not members, do not vote in AKF elections, and indeed may 
> not know that the AKF exists.  This is true for many thousands of 
> advocacy groups of various kinds; ISOC is such a group.

I don't have much trouble with this at all.  You are using the word
"represent" in at least two different meanings, casually switching from 
one to another.  

If ISOC puts forward its opinions as representative (ie typical) of 
those of the people with considerable experience with the 
Internet, possibly professional experience, that's OK.

If ISOC puts itself forward as representing its 6,000 members, mostly
individuals, in an Internet governance model, that's fine.  I believe
that ISOC, though somewhat disorganized, has a reasonably
straightforward internal democratic process.

If ISOC puts forward its opinions as representative (ie typical) of
those of Internet users, that's highly questionable.  The typical
ISOC member is likely to be quite different from the average user 
of the Internet.

If ISOC puts itself forward as representing Internet users in an
Internet governance model, even thought those users have in nearly
all cases have never heard of ISOC, that is unacceptable.  In this
case "representative" clearly implies some sort of democratic 
process, which is in fact totally lacking.

If you say "I represent community X" to a politician, he assumes
some sort of process of consent.  Now democratic governments 
actively seek out representatives of various interest groups.  
The set of Internet users is such a group.  Governments cast about
for someone that can be said to represent them.  ISOC pops up,
eager to please.  Unfortunately ISOC simply does not represent
end users in the sense that politicians think that they do.

> > I can only suppose that this sort of reasoning is behind the 
> > assumption that the gTLD MOU did not need any support from the 
> > Internet community.
> 
> No one has ever held such an assumption.

<sigh>  

--
Jim Dixon                  VBCnet GB Ltd           http://www.vbc.net
tel +44 117 929 1316                             fax +44 117 927 2015