Okay, I guess I still want to emphasize the aspect of individual rights as
a collective interest.

*My/our* world is made better when *your* kids are better educated.

*I/we* benefit when *you* are able to innovate more effectively.

*My/our* ability to understand my/our world is enhanced by *your* freedom
to speak.

The (non-linear, exponential, multiplier) network effects of individual
freedoms are what constitute the most important (IMHO) collective benefit
of individual rights.

And, our individual lives are improved when there is a rising tide that
lifts all ships.  Regardless of the context where term may have originated,
this is true and important.

So, when we encounter appropriation of the P.I. term by narrow interests, I
think we should be prepared to respond to re-cast it systematically, and
not only "de-appropriate" the term or respond to it ad hoc.  I think it's
worth thinking about this systematically, so that when we encounter the
need there is a consistent frame to use that ties all the individual
instances together in a consistent manner.

We should always be thinking about how individual rights raise the tide
overall and multiply exponentially to benefit society collectively.
Especially if the term is being used to argue for narrow benefits in some
specific case.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 4:00 AM +0000 12/24/14, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>Dan:
>Of course there are collective goods, and a need to organize politically
>to achieve them.
>And I agree that freedoms themselves have many positive externalities; and
>that a legal system that protects rights could itself be considered a
>collective good; and that protecting rights (as I said in my last message)
>is in the interest of the general public.
>
>I think the only significant disagreement is here:
>
>> So it seems there may be two broad strategies to choose from here: (1) re-
>> appropriating the term P.I., or (2) attempting to remove the term P.I.
>> outright from systematic discourse among policy makers at ICANN.  And it
>> seems you are arguing for the latter.
>
>Neither. I don't think the term P.I. can be "appropriated." That's what I
>have been trying to say. I guess the opposing vision here is that through
>persistent organizing and agitating we can condition (in the Pavlovian
>sense) the ICANN polity to think of _our_ specific values and policy
>agenda every time they hear the term P.I. But it's hard to see how or why
>that would ever work. Dozens of other political actors are busy
>appropriating the term, including GACers (who think they represent the
>public interest simply by virtue of the fact that they are governments),
>intellectual property interests and business interests. And I am enough of
>a rational actor theorist to think that when GAC or the government of
>China or Steve DelBianco and other business interests actively push the
>term they know what they are doing, that kind of framing must contribute
>to their own policy agenda in an important way. So in the end, you just
>end up having an argument about what the public interest really is and
>whose conception is right.
>
>Or at worst, you create a bias in the discourse against individual freedom
>and principled recognition of rights, because in a mature
>institutionalized system most committed and well-resourced actors are
>trying to control things collectively rather than un-control things or
>free them up.
>
>More below...
>
>> I'm not sure if these need to be perfectly mutually exclusive, and I can see
>> there may be certain situations where the latter strategy might be the most
>> effective one for our immediate (collective NCSG) purposes.  But I expect
>> there will probably be other specific circumstances where the former
>> strategy might hold the most promise.
>>
>> Maybe we can agree to try to be aware of the two options, try to determine
>> which option is the best for a specific circumstance, and then use that
>> strategy where it seems to be the best choice to accomplish our goals.
>>
>> Does that make sense to you?
>
>Yes, it does. I am not trying to banish the term PI from the lexicon
>entirely. It can be useful when narrowly focused economic (or political)
>interest groups grab control of a policy process and milk it for private
>gain. The obvious line of attack in those situations is to say, yes, we
>see how this benefits X interest group (French vintners, or registrars, or
>incumbent registries or something) but doesn't it do so at the expense of
>the public? But I just don't think the overarching principle of our policy
>agenda is the public interest per se, a term taken from late 19th century
>utility regulation. I would rather think of it as advancing and protecting
>individual rights, especially rights to free expression and to an open and
>innovative internet.
>
>--MM