Hi all - this is an interesting debate - and thanks for raising it.
 I strongly support the concept public interest, coming as I do from a
democratic tradition that gives precedence to equality and human rights in
the public sphere. 
I do not think we should confuse this concept of "public interest" with
collective rights or consider that individual rights are somehow the
opposite of collective rights. Many individual rights have no meaning at all
if they are not exercised in a collective context. And many collective
rights are the sum of individual rights.
For example: the right to vote is an individual right, central to giving
expression to democratic participation. But an individual right to vote
means nothing if it is not exercised in a collective context where others
are also voting. Likewise, the right to language is an individual right: but
it has a value and meaning derived from the collective context in which the
language is expressed and the culture to which it gives expression. Freedom
of expression is an individual right: and it has meaning because others
express views which are different - again, there is a collective element to
the meaning of the individual right.
The broader notion of public interest is different in my view, and has a
strong tradition in some contexts simply because it ensures that the mighty
cannot overpower the weak, just because they are more powerful: there is a
benefit in all people being able to be heard, for example, not just a few. 
The public interest has also been the basis for asserting and protecting
many collective and individual rights such as women's rights and those of
groups discriminated against on the grounds of race, ethnic origin,
religion, sexual orientation and other grounds: because it is in the broader
public interest that everyone can participate and contribute fairly, without
prejudice, and this supports democracy.
I therefore see validity in the arguments that in the ICANN context this
notion of public interest needs to be protected to ensure the DNS is not
appropriated to suit purely private ends.
Whether this has been done well or not, and how it can be improved is
another debate - but I do not think we should shy away from stating clearly
what NSCG thinks it means and seeking to get a community consensus


Joy

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dan
Krimm
Sent: Wednesday, 24 December 2014 5:44 p.m.
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Important blog post about the ICANN Accountability CCWG

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