Milton,

You make a lot of compelling points about the slipperiness of the term
Public Interest.  But along the way you are tempted to dump the concept of
collective interests outright, and I think that goes too far.

We focus purely on individual rights at our collective peril.  At some
point, we have to not only organize ourselves collectively (which we do
here at NCSG) but also argue for collective interests explicitly.

This is, to be sure, a "progressive" point of view that may push back at a
"libertarian" point of view in the abstract.  Nevertheless, these
ideological frames might not always have to be in direct, simplistic
conflict.  Please read on.

I agree with you that the idea of a Public Interest is not, and never will
be, simple and uncomplicated.  But I would assert that there *are* broad
collective interests that are not simply the aggregate sum of individual
interests -- action based on individual gain or loss will not address these
sorts of things, which economists call market externalities or even "public
goods" (as I'm sure you well know).  In broad terms this includes things
like a sustainable environment, or the condition of a national economy:
individual interests may concentrate gain narrowly while spreading out the
loss broadly and shallowly, but eventually adding up to serious collective
damage that damages a broad range of individuals in the end.

For example, when businesses with which I had utterly no direct individual
relationship created circumstances that crashed the economy in 2008, it was
*my* economic environment that crashed along with that of everyone else,
and I suffered due to no individual transaction that I was involved in.
But the interest in having a sustainable economy is not easily attributable
to an individual right.  It was in the Public Interest to maintain a stable
economy, and narrow interests placed that collective interest in jeopardy.

Examples in the world of digital tech would include the stability and
fluidity of shared infrastructure that modern economies become increasingly
dependent upon to function "normally" in the current day.  It would also
include structural privacy and freedom of expression that applies broadly
(we enjoy the advantage of systemic design as individuals, but that overall
design is a collective interest -- we benefit when *others* enjoy freedoms,
not just when we enjoy freedoms individually, ourselves -- that is an
intrinsically collective interest).

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.

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?

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 1:18 AM +0000 12/24/14, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>Avri Doria
>
>> I support reappropriation of the misappropriated term.
>>
>> The public interest  with respect to names should be what ICANN focuses on
>> as it commits itself to that in the bylaws.
>
>Yes, I know. The people advocating for a public interest perspective mean
>that they want ICANN policies to serve some higher end and not just be an
>narrow interest-group grab for power and money. If that's what you mean by
>PI, fine. That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee in an ICANN  hotel.
>The fact that it's already embedded in the bylaws ought to tell you how
>meaningless it is. What policy debate or vote have we won by pointing to
>that bylaw?
>
>Aside from the infinite plasticity of the term, which we have already
>discussed, public interest discourse tends to assume that the collective
>interest always trumps the individual's interest. To some, this puts on an
>air of selfless nobility (we should only do what's good for society) until
>you realize that nearly all rights-based arguments (free expression,
>privacy, etc.) refer to individual rights. And most arguments for
>violating rights involve a claim that individuals or their rights are
>expendable in favor of some greater public good. And that's usually where
>we end up in ICANN.
>
>To that I say, No, there are these things called fundamental human rights
>that inhere in individuals qua individuals, and those rights usually, if
>not always, trump claims of public interest, convenience and necessity. I
>would much rather be arguing for and talking about fundamental rights than
>about the frigging public interest. It would be meaningful to get THAT in
>the bylaws because specific rights claims actually have some content. Any
>nincompoop can claim that their mission is to serve the public interest.
>But ask yourself why, after 16 years of trying, we've never gotten the
>Commerce Department to agree to put free expression rights into the core
>values or mission statement or bylaws? Um, do you think it is because that
>commitment would actually mean something concrete, that it would actually
>constrain what they can do?
>
>(I do believe that it is in everyone's interest (note: I do not say THE
>public interest) to have rights respected. Rights are in the public
>interest, imho, but the public interest does not always uphold rights.)
>
>Of course, a lot of bad things happen in the name of individual interest,
>too, but if I am going to be censored, surveilled, violated or robbed or
>expropriated or beat up I'd much prefer that the person doing it frankly
>acknowledge that they are doing it in their own self-interest and not
>claim that they are nobly devoted to some greater good. The latter is
>actually much more dangerous than garden-variety criminals. Just ask the
>Cambodians, or the guys defending torture.
>
>The other problem with PI is that it is often just a mask for the
>self-interest of powerful groups. We bailed out Wall Street because it was
>in everyone's interest, it was for all of our good, right? Right?
>