[ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear Kent Crispin and others,


On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Kent Crispin wrote:

> I agree.  I think that the idea of a ccSO is very poorly considered, and
> raises all kinds of questions that were very difficult to answer during
> the DNSO formation process.  For example, would the ccSO have a
> constituency structure? Would there be a NCC in the ccSO? How would
> other interests participate? Would there be an IDNHC for the ccSO? 

Kent, I have some questions. 
Do ASO and PSO have constituency structure? I have never heard that. 
So far as I know it, each ccTLD has their own governance struncture within
their own cc territories although the form of governance structure is very
diverse and within their own governance structures, each group represents
their own interests. Of course, I don't know how democratic structure .us
ccTLD would have, but it would have such a thing.


> It is certainly the case that creation of a ccSO would globally weaken
> the position of all the "user" interests (Business, IP, NC etc), because
> those interests would now have another forum to deal with, and other
> processes to worry about.  Creation of a gtldSO would make matters even 
> worse, from the point of view of the user community.

As I mentioned it above, user interests could be represented by each
ccTLD's governance structure. I agree that gtldSO could be very bad to
user interests. Then why are you directly linking the idea of ccSO with
gtldSO? Although gTLD and ccTLD are registry, their jurisdiction is quite
different. I recognize that some of ccTLDs are deviated from the original
spirit of ccTLD because they are seeking commercial interests rather than
public interests of local internet community within their territories.
However, ccTLDs are far more different in its representing interests and
governance from gTLDs. 


> During the DNSO formation process the ccTLDs were in my opinion the
> least community spirited actors of the lot -- even NSI was better (or at
> least more subtle -- because it had the USG to deal with).  The
> much-maligned IP and big business interests (the usual whipping boys of
> the NCC) were models of civic mindedness by comparision.  For example,
> the ccTLDs pushed for a proposal that half the votes on the NC should go
> to the registries (I should point out that I proposed that half the NC votes 
> would go to an "at large" constituency...)

What community are you talking about? Is it a unified and well tamed and
so easily controlled community? Do you want to talk about USG dominating
governing structure or IP conventions where the advanced countries'
interests are well protected or big businesses where the advanced
countries' MNCs are pioneering specifically in the field of ICT? Yes,
ccTLDs are composed of many cc's communities and so it could not be easily
unified by such a hegemonic governance system. That's another reason why
ccSO should be established.


> While the cc's frequently mention that they are an incredibly diverse
> group, it is interesting to note that externally they present a very
> united front with a very strong sense of self interest, and I expect
> that would continue if there was a ccSO.  (Example: Peter de Blanc was a
> DNSO candidate for the Board.  In his candidates statement he made the
> point that while he realized that board members were supposed to
> represent the corporations interests, in fact he would be representing
> cc interests).  If there were a ccSO there would be no other group on
> the board with such a clear vested interest. 

In my view, ccTLD group tends to seek harmonization rather than
integration that seems to be required in ICANN governance structure. It
might look seeking self-interest. Your quoted statement of Peter de Blanc
sounds that ccTLD interests are different from the commercial interests.
And it is quite opposite from what you wanted to show up. 


> In sum, I think it is a very bad idea to start creating SO's for 
> entities with such clear vested interest.

Kent, I was surprised at your strong standpoint for user interests in
criticizing the idea of ccSO because you have taken very coherently
critical to ncdnhc's user advocacy positions. 


Regards,

Chun Eung Hwi
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2- 583-3033
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667 
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   ehchun at peacenet.or.kr   
------------------------------------------------------------