13
Providers to come up with suggestions for a self-regulatory framework. After
considerable pondering, the ISPs and other Internet players came back to the government
and said that they would rather have the framework given by the government. This
happened for two reasons. First, the Internet actors were worried that the government
would later say or do something that contradicted what they would put forward. Second,
they did not have a clear idea of what to do. For its part, the government also did not
know what to do, because they have not had experience with Internet governance.
This incident clearly illustrates the persistence of top-down approaches to policy-
making and implementation in Korea. That approach dates back to the 1960s, when
Korea was undertaking its rapid economic development. Korean governments have little
experience in systematically doing research and mobilizing experts and interest groups.
The government does not trust the private sector to come up with feasible solutions to the
controversial issues or problems in the society. They view the government as being
accountable for any problems that arise from policies. In addition, they have experienced
criticism and bureaucratic reprisals if any problems occur. As a consequence, in Korea
the public sector, not the private sector, acts and is viewed as the responsible body. So
self-regulation and private ordering is yet to be meaningful. The attitude of deference to
government characterizes many ROW countries, not just Korea. This is one of the
reasons why the US ends up leading within ICANN and in other activities involving
Internet governance.
The tension between the government and the private sector, including civil society,
in Korea is most keenly revealed in the policy controversies surrounding the Korea
Network Information Center (KRNIC). KRNIC is the entity in Korea that centrally
coordinates ICANN participation. Arguably, KRNIC is a private entity. It was founded
pursuant to the Basic Law of Facilitating Informatization as a nonprofit foundation that
deals with matters regarding facilitating the use of information services and the
management of Internet addresses. But there is much confusion as to the legal status and
the actual nature of KRNIC’s activities. Some argue that KRNIC is a private organization
because their activities are not those mandated by the government.
7
Others argue that
KRNIC is an administrative agency under MIC because it was founded under a law
enacted by the Ministry of Information and Communication (MIC). And the articles of
Convention