NCC DNSO elections - Question 2

-- Subject: Re: [2]NCC Q&A Session with Candidates for DNSO Board
      Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 14:51:08 -0400
     From: James Love <>
       To: YJ Park <>
       CC:,, Jonathan Cohen

YJ Park wrote:
> Dear DNSO Board Candidates and NCC members,
> Background:
> In the ICANN process, it is inevitable to discuss "Sovereignty"
> under which NCC has been influenced, too. When it comes to
> ICANN process, this self-transforming concept itself needs to be
> settled ASAP to bring more harmonious coordination in the Cyber
> space between the BIG Brothers and dreaming Anarchists.
> First, could you expound your position on sovereignty in conjunction
> with governments and territoriality and extraterritorial management?
>     "ccTLD vs Governments(GAC)"
>     "Commercial vs Governments(GAC)"
>     "Territoriality vs extraterritorial tehcnical/administrative management

    I think of sovereignty as something that a national government has,
but maybe this is too narrow, according at least to the MIT dictionary

 Sovereignty Sov"er*eign*ty, n.; pl. Sovereignties. OE.
   soverainetee, OF. sovrainet'e, F. souverainet'e.
   The quality or state of being sovereign, or of being a
   sovereign; the exercise of, or right to exercise, supreme
   power; dominion; sway; supremacy; independence; also, that
   which is sovereign; a sovereign state; as, Italy was formerly
   divided into many sovereignties.

         Woman desiren to have sovereignty As well over their
         husband as over their love.              --Chaucer.

I think the relationship between the ccTLDs and governments should be
sorted out by the ccTLDs and the national governments.   I recognize
there will be cases where a government will seek the reassignment of a
ccTLD.  I haven't spent much time on this, and would be inclined to
support the ccTLD constituency views.  I am more concerned about the
relationship between ICANN and the ccTLDS, however.  In my view,
decentralization of power is a good thing in this area, and I think it
would  be good if the ccTLDs can avoid becoming subject to detailed
regulation by ICANN.  If they are going to be subject to the
jurisdiction of national governments, it would seem best to minimize
ICANN's role in managing the ccTLDs.  (This is not an area where I have
a lot of expertise).

I believe ICANN was specifically created as something private, and
independent from the GAC, except as an advisory body.  Like a lot of
inter governmental bodies, the GAC is not great on transparency.  My
impression is that the GAC resolutions so far have not been unreasonable
in terms of most policy issues, and that the main area of controversy
concerned the GAC's assertion of sovereignty over the ccTLDs.  As Peter
de Blanc says in his comment on this thread, there may be little to
prevent this in many cases, regardless of what the GAC says or does not

There might be certain advantages if the 244 ccTLDs have the ability to
look toward the various national legal systems to define certain rights,
for example in the areas of trademarks, copyright, privacy, etc.  That
way there would exist some levels of diversity in terms of legal systems
that people could actually choose for a registration.  In the US, for
example, the first amendment might have broader protections, and in some
other countries, different trademark traditions might be important.  

I have an open mind about these matters, but in general, I don't think
concentration of power and control is unambiguously a good thing.  In
looking at alternatives, I would look to see which approaches are likely
to result in more freedom, more diversity, and more privacy.  

> Secondly, there have been some movements in NCC such as
> "Civil Society Forum" which also aims to establish a system which
> can absorb more PEOPLE voices rather than digest bureaucratic
> approach in the Cyberspace.
> If you are a DNSO Board member, are you going to join this Forum?
> If so/or if not, could you specify why and what would you do accordingly?

    I think that the efforts by the organizers of the Civil Society
Forum are quite important, and remind people that the Internet is for
everyone, and not simply a way to make money.  I would join.

> Thank you for your cooperation.
> YJ Park

  You are welcome.

James Love
Consumer Project on Technology, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
voice 1.202.387.8030  fax