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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">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/