Re: "stakeholders" was: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN before the US Senate...

[Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, L. Gallegos wrote:

> I don't understand why we are arguing.  We agree that everyone is at least indirectly 
> affected by the internet and, as such, has an interest in ICANN's decision making.

I'm reacting to your comment that rather than using the word "stakholder"  
that we ought to use the word "users".  And that reaction is because the
word "users" itself excludes those people who are affected by the net but
who don't happen to have a login account somewhere.  I am reaching a term 
that is fully inclusive, which is not a property that I associate with 
"users".  My preferred words to describe the foundation upon which 
institutions of governance, such as ICANN, should be built are "people" 
and "persons"

 
> The argument is use or misuse of the term "stakeholder."  My contention is that 
> everyone affected by the internet is a stakeholder, and you are arguing there should 
> be no term used at all, if I read you correctly, because the US Constitution does not 
> use that term.

I used the US Constition's preamble simply to illustrate how a powerful 
thought can be eviscerated by changing its one word.  In that case I 
simply replaced the existing word "People" with the ICANN preferred word 
"Stakeholder".  And the result was a shadow of its former self.

The point is that we ought not to censor ourselves and our goals by using 
limited words, and limited conceptions.

The mere fact that you and I - and I know that we generally agree on
things - are having this exchange is illustrative of the power of the way
that connotations of limited words, like "users" or "stakeholders" lead to
logical derailment and confusion.

You are right that we could simply define "stakeholder" to mean everyone.  

But that will not remove the original sin from that word. The original
meaning of "stakeholders" is based on the idea of exclusion.  The word
"stakeholders" contains the message that if there are those who "have
stake" then there must be others who "do not have stake".  And no matter
how many Hayakawa's[*] we throw at a word, we rarely can wash it clean of
its original meeting.

So its better to use the right word in the first place.  We should say say
"people" when we mean people and not some indirect form, such as
"stakeholder" that is capable of being misconstrued.

		--karl--

[*] S.I. Hayakawa was a famous semantics expert.  (He was also, among
other things, a Senator from California.)