[ncdnhc-discuss] Re : [Implementation of Evolution and Reform] Another Exploration?

[YJ Park]

Dear Jefsey,

Thank you for your efforts to make this discussion more constructive.

As I admitted, I am lost here after particiapted in ICANN testbed for 
three years which unfortunately turned out as total failure. I was in 
ICANN as an Internet user under gTLD space and Internet user 
under .KR space. 

Facing ICANN reform I think it would be helpful for NCDNHC to be 
exposed to as diverse proposals as possible to have better views 
where we are heading to.

To have better understanding on your proposal on GCC and GIC, let
me ask several questions of you, if you don't mind.

Assuming the GIC+GCC proposal is on the table for ERC discussion, 

Q1. Can you explain what could be and should be the roles for the 
governments in the area of ccTLDs and gTLDs under this scheme. 

Q2. Re ccTLD matters, ccTLD alliances are here recommended to 
work closely with ICANN even in the GIC+GCC model. What kind of
relations could be developed? 

    - between ccTLD alliances and ICANN
    - between ccTLD alliances and GIC+ GCC 
    - ccTLD allainces and the governments

Q3. Re the States and UN TLDs, GAC is again mentioned as 
a coordinating body. Can you explain what are the differences 
between GAC and GIC+GCC in this context? 

Q4. RE sTLDs, you here proposed GIC again for coordination.
What makes you think sTLDs should be coordinated by GIC+GCC
while gTLDs should be coordinated by ICANN.

I want to explore various proposals as much as possible in an open 
manner whether new proposals can bring us values to not only 
make "Internet is for everyone" but also make "power to decide 
Internet policies for everyone".
 
Thank you,
YJ

===============================================

1. IMHO GAC is of no interest within the ICANN. GAC should be made 
a member of an "ICANN, ITU,+"  Group. As the ITU shares the same 
need on the same issue. ICANN, GAC and ITU should be joined in the 
Global Communication Committee (GCC). Global Internet Committee, 
GIC is the key of the whole solution because otherwise its potential 
members will aggregate within the ITU to get protected from the ICANN, s
ince the ICANN is not able/does not want to welcome them.

ICANN + GIC will form the value added level (layer 7-11 in the 
Extended network model). Under the GAC (12h layer) and on top of 
the network level (layer 0-7). 

2.  the ccTLDs are part of their national communities. 
The ccTLD alliance(s) should be member of the GIC and maintain 
close relations with ICANN as they today share too much in term of 
user registration culture. (That culture will meet a lot of changes with 
the evolution of the use of the URL).

3. the gTLDs are (cf. RFC 920) the area of direct administration of ICANN (IANA). 
The gTLD Constituency should be member of the GCC ICANN delegation.

4. the States and UN TLDs (eu, edu/mil/gov, int) should be represented 
through the GAC but could form a Public TLD group.

5. the sTLDs are a mixed area and should be split between registration/
support services business operations like SITA and NCDNHC for non-profit 
communities like ".sioux".

The non-ITU Members and the non-profit community should be Members of 
the GIC. This will include the open root TLDs and New.net. Obviously the BC 
will include Members in competition.

6. The large nomenclatures (ISSN, ISBN, WIPO, OMS, etc.) should 
progressively become members of the GIC.

Any other scheme will fail because this only a description of the forces and 
interests at stake, the way things are currently organizing even if ICANN, ITU, 
GAC may not realize it.

The only problem we have is that the sub-network ".arpa" has become too 
large for a while and this is to be corrected. Some think it will be corrected 
by an Internet becoming everything while the rest of the world think the 
Internet is over doing it, has already paid a lot at listening to the Internet 
enthusiasts and are not ready for a second Internet shock.
============================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20020729/156070f0/attachment-0001.html>