[ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN Reform: Role of ITU

[Chun Eung Hwi]

Dear Kent Crispin,


> On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 07:06:36AM +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
> > Dear Dave Crocker and Michael Froomkin,
> > 
> > > This line of thinking continues to ignore two, fundamental constraints:
> > > 
> > > 1.  The hierarchical nature of the DNS requires a single, logical control 
> > > over allocation/assignment policy.  Any effort to "devolve and share power" 
> > > must be designed in a way that is compatible with this technical 
> > > constraint.  However no proposal for this has been put forward to permit 
> > > honest, diligent analysis of its operational feasibility.
> > 
> > At initial stage, we could consider the regional distribution of root
> > servers (copies of A-root). Here, we could also increase the present
> > number of those root servers. And at the next stage, we should consider
> > any architectural improvement such as distributed root servers. Dave, why
> > don't you contribute for that?
> 
> This does not address the fundamental constraint that Dave mentioned. 

Truly! But the fundamental technological constraint is a big mistake and
to be improved. And gradually, we could move into that direction. The
fundamental technological mistake could not permanently justify the bad
governance structure. Even within the technological constraint, by
enhancing regional coordination function, we could realize the regionally
distributed governance structure.


> > > 2.  The ability to reach consensus about things is not much better at the 
> > > regional level than it is at the global level.  For one thing, the 
> > > construct of a "region" is often quite artificial.  For another, members of 
> > > a region often have widely disparate needs and goals.  Again, any proposal 
> > > for devolution and sharing of power needs to attend to this core fact of life.
> > 
> > So far as RIRs are concered, we have already done in that way. Obviously,
> > "region" is quite artificial as much as the formation of ICANN. Global
> > community is much more diverse and complicated than a region has disparate
> > needs and goals.
> 
> This is an invalid generalization.  Sometimes (not always, of course) a
> larger scale actually improves the possibility of consensus, because a
> regional conflict can be too intense for the parties directly involved
> to even contemplate a compromise -- eg, the Middle East. 

No! That example is not appropriate. Israel was not originally one part of
Middle East. And as we see it, it seems to be one extension of the U.S. in
that region. Middle East countries has frequently reached a common
consensus although that consensus has always been ignored by Israel and
the U.S. Sure! Sometimes, but not always, a larger scale improves the
possibility of consensus. Standing regionally distributed governance
structure and sometimes, if necessary, ad-hoc global coordination could be
a very effective and desirable structure. 


> In fact this very effect may well apply to ICANN -- it is fairly 
> certain that a compromise to establish the new gTLDs would never have 
> happened without ICANN providing a forum for it to happen.
> 
> > ICANN is too much centralized to be a global consensus
> > structure.
> 
> Proof by repeated assertion.

Yeah, even Stuart Lynn asserted that when he proposed the five
representatives of Governments at the Board.


Regards,

Chun Eung Hwi
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2- 2166-2216
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667 
Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   ehchun at peacenet.or.kr   
------------------------------------------------------------