It is worth noting again that many of the 'Public Interest Commitments' made by new gTLD operators contain clauses and commitments that are probably not in the public interest at all, and that go against consensus policy recommendations. A case in point is many of them bring in the idea of a globally protected trade mark list, which was explicitly rejected as policy, and protects the interests of IP maximalist trade mark owners more than the public. 

David

On 23 Dec 2014, at 5:54 am, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>> 
>> But *within* the legitimate ICANN jurisdiction, there are broad
>> constituencies that need representation.  ALAC is one voice for them,
>> and I consider our NC/NP's to be another.  We are as close to a "public
>> interest" as one gets in a multi-stakeholder model, and I want us to stand up
>> proudly for that representation in the abstract, even if it makes total
>> sense to define specific issues narrowly on their own merits.
> 
> Yep, I agree. But that's also what makes the P.I. rhetoric so seductive and potentially dangerous. 
> I think we need to advocate public interest-oriented goals, as we understand them, but we need to bear in mind that other constituencies can also claim that mantle. Indeed, if you pay careful attention to ICANN's past 5-8 years you find that the term is most commonly used by the BC and most frequently invoked by GAC, Steve DelBianco and Marilyn Cade, usually to justify policies that we don't support.  
> 
> --MM