ࡱ> &(%[ Lbjbj .jj> l****8b n *aaaqssssss$  laaaaaaqaqXqqz :j** qq0qp ^p q**Thank you, chairman. My name is Y.J. Park. I was ICANNs DNSO review working group chair back in 2000, executive director of Multilingual Internet Names Consortium, and recently co-founder of WSIS civil society Internet governance caucus in 2003. Today I would like to draw your attentions to 2003 WSIS action plan on country code top level domain management as one of independent issues. Historically, ccTLD has been managed by local Internet communities in coordination with IANA. Some ccTLD registries started to experience tensions between governments and local Internet communities over who controls national infrastructure even before and after ICANNs launch (1998). Numerous ccTLD registry tensions have been presented; tensions between governments and ccTLD manager or tensions between governments and local Internet community or tensions between governments and ICANN as a global ccTLD coordination body. The current ICANN governance model is similar to global business association. So, ICANN tries not to get involved in national politics in principle. This design has put ICANN into a vulnerable position of dealing with its own tensions with governments or any legitimate body who dont have a formal diplomatic dialogue with ICANNs oversight government. On the other hand, there are numerous county code top level domains that are not associated with national sovereignty such as .HM (Heard and MacDonald Islands), .CC (Cocos Islands), etc. Those TLDs are nicknamed as penguin TLDs. It would be a challenge to identify a nature of penguin TLDs. This issue invites to a series of questions: (1) whether country code TLDs can be automatically associated with national sovereignty (2) whether penguin TLDs should be or should not be considered as ccTLDs. (3) If such penguin TLDs are not ccTLDs, how can they be categorized in the global ccTLD governance? (4) If penguin TLDs are still ccTLDs, how can they be differentiated from ccTLDs associated with national sovereignty? Specific investigation on country code top level domain (ccTLD) coordination can explain technical, economic, and political natures of Internet governance debate. Global ccTLD coordination is one of urgent issues and it is also connected to multilingual top level domain names, root server management and civil society participation in national ccTLD governance process. Governments and civil society have made efforts to address ccTLD coordination issue in a both national and global level with little success. I hope WGIG can present more specific coordination mechanism or governance mechanism of global ccTLDs in a timely manner before the current Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and US government is expired. Lastly, I would like to congratulate on Working Group on Internet Governances success to present itself to the global community as a meaningful forum for information society governance experiment and appreciate the UN secretariats willingness to embrace substantial voices from civil society in Working Group on Internet Governances formation and its consultation process. Thank you for your attentions.     679:c n m n <>?ABDEGHKL jU CJaJo(o(# :<=>@ACDFGIJKL $ ]a$>K,1h. A!"#$%  i<@< NormalCJ_HaJmH nHsH tH<A@< Default Paragraph Font8&@8 Footnote ReferenceH*.U@.  Hyperlink >*B*phL  L L K 8@0(  B S  ?18|bf >CPS_cntty# ( x } ) / = > > @ @ A A C D F G I J M MV+4Wg> > @ @ A A C D F G I J M 33333333= > > @ @ A A C D F G I J M CHENITI H:\Website\docs\Comment-Park.doc@uL P@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial;|i0Batang"0hDD k !0de > 2qHXThank you, chairmanYJ ParkCHENITIOh+'0t  0 < HT\dlThank you, chairmanhanYJ ParkJ PJ PNormalCHENITI2ENMicrosoft Word 9.0@ @&g@&g ՜.+,0 hp|   e 2 Thank you, chairman Title  !"#$'Root Entry F