[ncdnhc-discuss] ccSO

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear Alejandro Pisanty,

Thank you for your some questions!

On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Alejandro Pisanty - CUAED y FQ, UNAM wrote:

> 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).

I believe that you could take it carefully as you have shown in last MdR
Board meeting when IDN committee was discussed.


> > 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.

Contrary to your description that ccSO would break the balance, I think
that ccSO could represent more locally based general users' interest than
what DNSO could do and accordingly it could lead to providing more
balanced advice to the Board.


> 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.

Basically, I agree to your general observation of the reality of ccTLD
group. Nevertheless, I have a question if ICANN could enforce any type of
governance structure to ccTLDs that exist within the territory of each
country's jurisdiction. Precisely speaking, it depends on their own
decision of their local internet community even when it could be regarded
as very unsatisfied one viewed from the external eyes. In that respect, I
don't worry too much about .us because it depends on American's decision.


> 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.

Never, my viewpoint is not one-sided. ccSO is simply one part of ICANN,
the global internet community. Therefore, ccSO should seek some harmonious
policy advices to this community regarding many ICANN issues. What I
emphasized in my prior message is that ccSO's internal policy is within
their own jurisdiction.


> > 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.

Of course! And as I see it, the Board and ICANN staff politics are also
very complicated 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.

I want to hear your reasoning containing a lot of subtelties and the
recognition of some serious, uncomfortable facts. Then, I could clarify my
account for this issue. 


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   
------------------------------------------------------------