[ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO

Fri Dec 21 03:44:13 CET 2001

Dear Chun,

a profound, rational discussion of non-commercial views re a ccSO will be
most useful in orienting the Board's decision making. I have to explore
all arguments and options with an open mind and without taking a final
decision till the end. Let me try to ask you to expand or clarify some
points (already taking into account the follow-up of this discussion by
Kent).

On Fri, 21 Dec 2001, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:

> 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?

This may not be too relevant for the discussion. The questions by Kent are
important as questions, not as challenges. They imply something quite
interesting: the NCDNHC was formed to enter dialogue with other types of
interests in domain names: registries, registrars, ccTLD administrators,
etc. As long as we are under the same roof we may try to give discussions
a global significance. The NCDNHC - ccTLD relation is more or less on an
even footing if the cc's are within the same SO as us non-commercials.
This balance is broken, to our disadvantage, by an SO, and what I read in
Kent's questions is that he is perceiving this and asking if there would
be a way to rebalance this.

Bear in mind that the NCDNHC is not only "dot-org", but also dot-edu,
dot-org.cc, dot-edu.cc, etc. The structure of SLDs etc. vary very widely
in different cc's.

I would not worry so much about .us as you seem to, in this discussion. A
fact though is that you correctly point out that some ccTLDs have some
form of open, known, consensus-based, participative governance. Most do
not. Also the ones that collect a large number of domain names do not. The
world is lucky that many are administrated by honest academic institutions
as Kent has pointed out, but even they may have their legitimacy
questioned or enter into controversial situations (eg try to
commercialize). In a nutshell: it is not immediately apparent that a ccSO
would increase the democratic participation of domain-name holders in the
world. As Kent points out, requiring democracy in the way a ccTLD is run
is not an easy requirement to set.

>

Your reading of 1591 is a bit one-sided. The cc administrators are called
there an in ICP-1 to care both for the LCI and for the global Internet
community. The purpose of a ccTLD is not only to run things in-country but
at the very least to make them accessible globally.

>
> 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.

The internal politics of the cc community are far more complex than this
and cannot be underestimated.

> 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.
>
To be useful, the reasoning here lacks a lot of subtleties and the
recognition of some serious, uncomfortable facts. Plus, you seem to miss
the point in Kent's argument.

>
> 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.

I'm afraid you've been misreading Kent for a long, long time.

Alejandro Pisanty
>
>
> 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
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>