On legitimacy (which you seem to understand very well for your question is an apt one): Political representation is no different than linguistic representation. There is always a gap between between the "representant" (french native speaker here) and what (or who) is being represented. Thus, legitimacy is always claimed but the represented is never perfectly represented (if that gap did not exist, there would be no /political/ power, but I digress). Legitimacy is easier claimed than contested, that is because it is rather inelastic : you need to change a lot of legitimacy value before the individuals start to act differently towards those who claim to represent them legitimately. And that is why revolutions are legitimate even though they are a breaking action with regard the established/claimed representation and the people that are being represented (claimed legitimacy). Revolutions are a contest of legitimacy /assertion/. The political game around legitimacy (and authority) is one of assertion. It is a never-ending game, even though the swings are inelastically produced by that game. It is played with words mostly, and by answering the type of question you ask. So, where do we get our legitimacy from indeed? I would say from the fact that Internet is a global something, IANA should be understood as a global something, and the legitimacy-giving atom (or represent[or]) is precisely individuals from civil society. In my opinion this requires we give the object of political assertion a certain type of definition, declare it a certain type of phenomena. But it's been a long time since I thought about those things ... Nicolas On 01/03/2014 5:21 AM, Pranesh Prakash wrote: > Dear Milton, > Would you have prior writings that I can refer to (perhaps you could > direct me to the right part of one of your books?) on the issue of > political legitimacy for this view on stakeholder equality? Or > perhaps some social or political theorists I should be reading? > > Governments, through votes or through other means, have gained > political legitimacy to represent their nation-state. > Intergovernmental organizations claim political legitimacy by being > membership-driven aggregations of these nation-states, and seek to > espouse the 'global' point of view (and do a poor job of it, very often). > Business and technical organizations claim political legitimacy both > by having historically been in control of this network of networks, > and by the fact that there is no way possible for its continued > operation without them. > Where do civil society actors (and academics), especially those many > of us who *aren't membership organizations and don't have grass routes > networks* to back us, get our political legitimacy from? What answer > should we give when asked, "Who died and made you > king/queen/boss/co-equal?" > > Regards, > Pranesh > > Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> [2014-02-26 23:18:23]: >> Dear fellow NCSG members: >> >> I am involved in preparing two submissions to the Brazil meeting. >> One, with Brenden Kuerbis, is a detailed proposal for globalization >> of IANA. It is not ready yet, but watch for it. >> >> The other is a proposed principle about stakeholder equality. That >> statement is ready for your viewing and comment here: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tuWn6tnQBFhXKz6FumabAHpG3zfCNx2ZBPzWNw3Ifo4/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> It's a short 2-pager, 600 words. I just want to test the waters and >> see how much support there is for this or whether it needs major >> revisions. >> >> >> Milton Mueller >> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ >> >> >> >> >