<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4728.2300" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Dear Jefsey,</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=굴림 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Thank you for your efforts to make this discussion more constructive.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=굴림 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>As I admitted, I am lost here after particiapted in ICANN testbed
for </DIV>
<DIV>three years which unfortunately turned out as total failure. I was in
</DIV>
<DIV>ICANN as an Internet user under gTLD space and Internet user
</DIV>
<DIV>under .KR space. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=굴림 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Facing ICANN reform I think it would be helpful for NCDNHC to be
</DIV>
<DIV>exposed to as diverse proposals as possible to have better views
</DIV>
<DIV>where we are heading to.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=굴림 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>To have better understanding on your proposal on GCC and GIC,
let</DIV>
<DIV>me ask several questions of you, if you don't mind.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=굴림 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Assuming the GIC+GCC proposal is on the table for ERC discussion, </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=굴림 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Q1. Can you explain what could be and should be the roles for the
</DIV>
<DIV>governments in the area of ccTLDs and gTLDs under this scheme. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=굴림 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Q2. Re ccTLD matters, ccTLD alliances are here recommended to </DIV>
<DIV>work closely with ICANN even in the GIC+GCC model. What kind of</DIV>
<DIV>relations could be developed? </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=굴림 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> - between ccTLD alliances and ICANN</DIV>
<DIV> - between ccTLD alliances and GIC+ GCC </DIV>
<DIV> - ccTLD allainces and the governments</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=굴림 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Q3. Re the States and UN TLDs, GAC is again mentioned as </DIV>
<DIV>a coordinating body. Can you explain what are the differences </DIV>
<DIV>between GAC and GIC+GCC in this context? </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=굴림 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Q4. RE sTLDs, you here proposed GIC again for coordination.</DIV>
<DIV>What makes you think sTLDs should be coordinated by GIC+GCC</DIV>
<DIV>while gTLDs should be coordinated by ICANN.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=굴림 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>I want to explore various proposals as much as possible in an
open </DIV>
<DIV>manner whether new proposals can bring us values to not only </DIV>
<DIV>make "Internet is for everyone" but also make "power to decide </DIV>
<DIV>Internet policies for everyone".</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thank you,</DIV>
<DIV>YJ</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=굴림 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>===============================================</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=굴림 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>1.<X-TAB> IMHO GAC is of no interest within the ICANN. GAC should be
made </DIV>
<DIV>a member of an "ICANN, ITU,+" Group. As the ITU shares the same
</DIV>
<DIV>need on the same issue. ICANN, GAC and ITU should be joined in the </DIV>
<DIV>Global Communication Committee (GCC). Global Internet Committee, </DIV>
<DIV>GIC is the key of the whole solution because otherwise its potential </DIV>
<DIV>members will aggregate within the ITU to get protected from the ICANN,
s</DIV>
<DIV>ince the ICANN is not able/does not want to welcome them.<BR><BR>ICANN +
GIC will form the value added level (layer 7-11 in the </DIV>
<DIV>Extended network model). Under the GAC (12h layer) and on top of </DIV>
<DIV>the network level (layer 0-7). <BR><BR>2.<X-TAB> </X-TAB>the
ccTLDs are part of their national communities. </DIV>
<DIV>The ccTLD alliance(s) should be member of the GIC and maintain </DIV>
<DIV>close relations with ICANN as they today share too much in term of </DIV>
<DIV>user registration culture. (That culture will meet a lot of changes with
</DIV>
<DIV>the evolution of the use of the URL).<BR><BR>3.<X-TAB> </X-TAB>the
gTLDs are (cf. RFC 920) the area of direct administration of ICANN (IANA).
<BR>The gTLD Constituency should be member of the GCC ICANN
delegation.<BR><BR>4.<X-TAB> </X-TAB>the States and UN TLDs (eu,
edu/mil/gov, int) should be represented </DIV>
<DIV>through the GAC but could form a Public TLD
group.<BR><BR>5.<X-TAB> </X-TAB>the sTLDs are a mixed area and should be
split between registration/</DIV>
<DIV>support services business operations like SITA and NCDNHC for non-profit
</DIV>
<DIV>communities like ".sioux".<BR><BR>The non-ITU Members and the non-profit
community should be Members of </DIV>
<DIV>the GIC. This will include the open root TLDs and New.net. Obviously the BC
</DIV>
<DIV>will include Members in competition.<BR><BR>6.<X-TAB> </X-TAB>The
large nomenclatures (ISSN, ISBN, WIPO, OMS, etc.) should </DIV>
<DIV>progressively become members of the GIC.<BR><BR>Any other scheme will fail
because this only a description of the forces and </DIV>
<DIV>interests at stake, the way things are currently organizing even if ICANN,
ITU, </DIV>
<DIV>GAC may not realize it.<BR><BR>The only problem we have is that the
sub-network ".arpa" has become too </DIV>
<DIV>large for a while and this is to be corrected. Some think it will be
corrected </DIV>
<DIV>by an Internet becoming everything while the rest of the world think the
</DIV>
<DIV>Internet is over doing it, has already paid a lot at listening to the
Internet </DIV>
<DIV>enthusiasts and are not ready for a second Internet
shock.<BR>============================================<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>