> 
> 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