This leaves out the other 40 million South Koreans, who do not find themselves among the sky people crowded into Seoul. Perhaps it would be even more correct to say that the Net has helped to integrate provincial South Koreans better into the culture of privileged Seoul-dwellers?

It's hard to know how to apply US principles of free speech, at the comparatively detailed doctrinal level, to Korean legal phenomena, and hard to apply concepts more broadly in any reliable mapping, because the two social systems could hardly be more different. The US Supreme Court, which has not been particularly interested in or solicitous of anonymity, has decided its few anonymity cases in the area of campaign speech, where it is particularly obvious within our terms of social reference, even to Justices, that anonymity must be protected by the First Amendment.

But we are also certain since New York Times v. Sullivan, half a century ago, that limitations on defamation law (not merely limitations on disclosure of speakers' identities, but on liability for defamation altogether) are also constitutionally required in order to ensure "robust, wide-open and uninhibited" public debate. So if we were really to be applying anything like US concepts, let alone specific constitutional doctrine, your conclusion would be difficult to reach.

Instead, we are asking different questions, answerable only within their own cultural frame. It be helpful, I think, to spell out the spectrum of positions likely to be taken on the issues within the Korean discourse. What we need most is to see the span of concepts that will be employed by all the parties engaged in the argument, in order to appreciate not what you or I might do with the US law we know, but what the real values are underlying the various Korean positions: what the native-speakers of that law talk think they are saying, and why they think they are saying it.

SAY WHAT YOU MEAN, JUST DON’T SAY IT MEAN: ANONYMITY AND CIVILITY ON SOUTH KOREAN INTERNET

Introduction & Thesis

South Korea & the Internet

Online Defamation

Real Name Verification System

Real Name Verification of Internet News Sites

Conclusion

WWW.KIBONG.CHO: PRIVATIZATION OF THE GENERIC TOP LEVEL DOMAINS

-- By KibongCho - 23 Oct 2012

THESIS

In this paper, I argue that the current privatization and decentralization of the generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) names by ICANN, an idea that I initially supported and thought would be good for the public, could actually harm the public interest since in general, only larger companies with a lot of money would be able to register gTLDs, and once they control the gTLD market, can demand much higher fees for registering domain names from the public.

INTRODUCTION

Even though I cannot approve Mr. Donald Trump’s business ethics, politics and particularly his hairstyle, I admire his vanity. I myself, enjoy placing my name on things. When I learned of Google’s new service that assists users to purchase a domain name and have their own email address, the temptation of owning my own email address “[email protected]” became irresistible.

However, my excitement quickly turned to despair, as I realized that NAMEKING.COM, INC. (“NAMEKING”), had already squatted on “www.kibong.com”, and was demanding me to pay up $1,500 if I wanted the domain (registering new domains ending in “.com” costs around $9.99) even though it had zero visitors (http://www.statscrop.com/www/kibong.com). NAMEKING was crossing the line, and I became determined to resist rather than yield to just another clear example of the Proletariats exploiting the Bourgeoisie.

I was going to do this by buying the domain name www.kibong.cho.. Who says I cannot do this?

SOME LEGAL BACKGROUND OF TOP LEVEL DOMAINS

As I was trying to register kibong.cho, I came across “namespace.org,” an organization that seemed to share a similar mission as our class of freeing the public from the “King-of-the-un-deads.” Their mission statement said:

Founded in 1996, Name.Space was created by Paul Garrin to address the growing demand for Internet Domain Names by creating Top Level Domains to supplement impending shortages under the limited set of .COM, .NET and .ORG. During this time in Internet history, many were spreading misinformation that large numbers of top-level domain names were either unfeasible or could cause harm and "break" the Internet, in order to maintain their market dominance and thwart competition from potential newcomers (emphasis added).

[Discuss the legal dispute between Name.Space v. NSI in SDNY and 2d Cir.. Analyze the “White Paper” 63 Fed.Reg. at 31,741. “Expansion of gTLPs should proceed at a deliberate pace, in order to maintain the stability and promote the controlled evolution of the DNS.” 202 F.3d 573, 578. Pursuant to the White Papers, court did not want to permit adding new gTLDs at the time until the transition to ICANN was completed. Id. at 583. Second Circuit says “[t]here is nothing inherent in the architecture of the Internet that prevents new gTLDs from constituting expressive speech,” and that it held that it was not protected speech in the decision because the existing structure at the time prevented gTLDs from being expressive speech].

ICANN’s CURRENT LIBERALIZATION OF gTLDs. WHY DOES THIS NOT RESOLVE MY PROBLEM?

Perhaps the public in fact has more to lose than gain, since the current ICANN’s gTLD liberalization structure would mostly restrict gTLD registration access to corporations and individuals with big pockets. For example, ICANN requires US $185,000 evaluation fee, and US $25,000 annual registration fee for registering a gTLD. Would people really pay this much money to register for a gTLD if what they were interested in is to promote public interest?

By limiting access at the initial stages only to wealthy applicants, the ICANN is perhaps giving control of this market to corporations, which will then have more control over the public. The ICANN website explicitly lists “Increased control: You set the rules and the price for those registering your TLD,” as one of the benefits of owning a gTLD.

CONCLUSION

At least under the current structure, the gTLD market is controlled by an entity that is closely monitored by the government. I might not get to register kibong.cho, which is unfortunate, but no one else gets to either. Under the gTLD liberalization structure that gives corporations an advantage over the public in terms of controlling the market, it seems like ICANN is providing corporations another opportunity to subject the Bourgeoisie to their control.

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, KibongCho
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.