隨著民主的進程，有愈來愈多的非營利組織成為「公共治理」的一環，其非民選代表亦非文官，卻扮演具有公共性與權威性的角色，決定公共價值的定義或利益的分配。那麼，哪一些非營利組織可以做為代表？要代表誰的價值或利益？非營利組織的決議如何及接受誰的監督？又應當如何負責？這些發問都攸關民主政治實踐的全新想像，顯然需要重視。本文以我國唯二的兩個民間分級專業團體為研究對象，探討其在圖書分級評議過程中的角色功能，瞭解兩個團體的參與者本身對其角色的認知，並進一步回答前述關於代表性與課責性的提問。 作者主張，在網絡治理的時代，我們對於代表性的認識應超越過去代議政治「誰能代表」的框架，從「誰沒有被代表」的角度進行檢視。而在課責的問題上，傳統「委託—代理人」的課責邏輯也可能不再適用，非營利組織宣稱代表社會公益，理應盡力做到多元意見的代表。不過，我們必須認清公民社會並非同質，無法避免相互衝突的價值與利益，民間參與者本身也常會有各自立場與偏好。在這樣的政治現實下，參與公共治理的非營利組織至少要做到資訊公開與開放溝通，接受公共的檢視與建言，乃至於公共的批判。換言之，來自公民社會的意見，將決定參與治理的非營利組織是否能持續獲得「公信力」，這也正是公民社會向其課責的方式，而資訊的公開透明，則是課責的必要基礎。

After the abolition of the Publication Law in 1999, the authority of rating and classifying publications was transferred to two non-profit organizations (NPOs), namely the R.O.C Publication Appraisal Foundation and the Chinese Association of Self-regulating Publications. This thesis reviews the background and function of the two NPOs, with particular emphasis on the standards and procedures that they employ in deciding the rating of controversial publications. In this way, this thesis tries to discuss the issues of representation and accountability regarding NPOs that play an increasingly important role in public governance. The authors argue that in the era of network governance, the demand for representation should go beyond the question of “Who can represent?”, instead asking “Who are not represented?” In terms of the accountability issue, the NPOs participating in public governance should be accountable, in principle, to the general public, and hence make their information transparent for public investigation. The comments from the public determine the “credibility” of the NPOs, and in this way make them responsible for what they do in the governing process. In maintaining this new scheme of accountability, information transparency is by all means a critical basis.