Important blog post about the ICANN Accountability CCWG

[Milton L Mueller]

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] 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?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20141223/300a1793/attachment.htm>