[discuss] Transparency and Accountability vis-à-vis ICANN and the IANA functions
Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com
Mon Apr 7 22:33:55 UTC 2014
On 08/04/2014 07:31, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
> I agree with Milton, and would also question the concept that the public interest is "mutually exclusive" of so-called "private interests."
A wise man* (who was a research director of CERN some years ago) once
defined his job as creating the best possible distribution of
unhappiness. (His job was actually distributing the budget among
competing research groups and their support services).
I think that's very close to the question of what is the public
interest. We can never make everybody happy simultaneously, but
distributing unhappiness fairly is perhaps possible. A situation
in which each stakeholder [group] raises its issues but some wise
decision making body strikes a compromise is as close as we can get.
*Lorenzo Foà (1937–2014)
> I would also question the idea that no stakeholder group represents or seeks to represent the "public interest" (in ICANN, consider the ALAC and NCSG directly). At another level each group would have a reasonable claim to considering the public interest in one way or another. I would also say that the "public interest" includes balancing the needs of the so-called "private interests" with those of the "multitude," which can (and should) emerge from the balancing of needs of multiple stakeholders in the internet.
> Of course, there is a tension when actively seeking to maximize the needs of the "multitudes" against the needs of all these other specific groups, which including various types of end-users who may differ from the "multitude" in their needs and desires, as well as all the other participants in the ecosystem -- none of whom should be excluded from the public. At that point, I don't think you are necessarily representing the "public interest" at all, but rather a particular socioeconomic vision of what's good for the public. And there can be a tendency for this to devolve into being a vision of a few (who may not be mandarins) about what is good for the many. And historically, that has not always led us to good places....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 3:08 PM
> To: 'Stephen Farrell'; michael gurstein
> Cc: '1Net List'
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Transparency and Accountability vis-à-vis ICANN and the IANA functions
>> -----Original Message-----
>> On 04/03/2014 10:55 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>>> As I see it there are two possible and mutually exclusive goals that
>>> these processes might be pursuing:
>>> 1. The "public interest" i.e. ensuring that the operation of these
>>> processes maximize benefits for the broadest range of those
>>> concerned with the Internet i.e. (in the current context)
>>> "everybody"/in Parminder's phrase, the public
>>> 2. The reconciliation of the interaction of a range of "private" (I.e.
>>> sectional or "stakeholder") interests
>> You seem to me to be making an error here.
>> You are attempting to establish #1 via #2 (i.e. discussion on this
>> list), yet you have claimed these are mutually exclusive.
>> For me, that makes your claim that #1 is qualitatively better as a
>> goal pretty unconvincing.
> This is a very profound point, and something that naïve democrats routinely fail to grasp.
> How would we ever know what is the 'public interest?' in a pure, town-hall style democracy, there would be collective deliberation, yes, and perhaps a vote - but certainly every participant in that debate would argue and think and act in ways that were grounded in their own private interest. I don't care how much they proclaim otherwise, everyone's perspective and understanding of issues is filtered through their own situation. The whole point of open, democratic and deliberative political decision making is not that it suddenly makes all individual humans into angels who miraculously know and consider only the broader collective interest; it is that it manages to aggregate and meld a bunch of private interests into a distributional bargain that serves a broader group interest.
> When Gurstein says that public interest can never emerge from open debate, discussion, bargaining etc among private interests, I just wonder how the heck he thinks he knows what the public interest is? What, exactly, gives him privileged access to knowledge of which policiies, in a complex world full of unintended consequences, will do the most good? There is a certain strain of (highly elitist) political thought which, in the end, amounts to little more than a claim that a group of privileged mandarins know what is better for all of us and have the right to impose it on us. And I'm afraid that that's exactly where certain people would like to lead us.
> There actually is no such thing as a public interest that is in no one's private interest.
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> * * *
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered
> confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in
> error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
> e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or
> use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> * * *
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we
> inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1)
> avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state
> and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another
> party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
More information about the discuss