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

[YJ Park]

Dear Jefsey,

Thank you for sharing your thought.

Giving my full support to your comment that "I want it dominated by the
@large, animated by the ccTLD under the protection of their Govs.",
let me share the concerns I have before we deal with your proposal
with details.

> >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.
>
> The Governments have no specific role: They have legitimacy and law over
> what is national. ITU has legitimacy from Govs over what is international.
> ICANN has legitimacy and delegation over what comes from the USG in the
> Internet (.arpa today still leading sub-namespace) .

Yes, I agree. The Governments do have a superior status to any party
in their territory which has been established for centuries and centuries.

This kind of "superior status" for most governments has not been quite
applied to cyber space territory which can be interestingly compared with
US. US does still have such status by initiating ICANN process under
its oversight.

The challenges from "Internet community" against government has been
so far "the governments except "US Gov" have not contributed to
create and even sustain Internet therefore the governments in general
do not comprehend Internet and Internet will be endangered if the gov'ts
try to step in to this kind of coordination.

My understanding is ICANN has tried to represent the Internet community
all of sudden from 1998 under DoC's blessing by organizing several SOs,
constituencies, committees, task forces, etc which has been still poorly
particiapted in from many parts of the Internet-penetrated countries asking
the governments in the GAC to observe ICANN's performace under DoC's
oversight.

Despite the governments' exclusive authority in offline space, at that time
the assumption presented by the self-claimed "global" Internet community,
ICANN, was the governements should not and could not exercise its
power over Internet even local Internet community since Internet is global
resource which is connected to all therefore cannot be controlled by
one gov't.

As a result of it, ICANN, self-claimed "global" Internet community could
exercise their power as both technical coordinator as they promised
and even policy coordinator which initially disavowed and later insisted
on full recognition from the unidentified Internet community so far.

And we all of sudden start to discuss the roles for the rejected party,
more exactly intentionally gagged one such as the governments
watching global at-large members thrown out by ICANN who used to
be recognized as tools to give legitimacy to the self-claimed global
Internet community, ICANN.

I am now wondering whether the whole arguments we went through
to make NCDNHC and Internet users voices heard in the ICANN
process was merely used to fortify each others' positions during a
political tug-of-war between the governments and Internet community.
Ironically, NCDNHC and Internet users seem not be fully accepted or
recognized as serious counterpart or part of their decision-making
structure by neither party.

Sincerely,
YJ