RE: [ga] Pro-Nouns

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

You don't get it Eric, it is not that security is unimportant. Rather, it is
that the ICANN is subverting a quarterly corporate business meeting into a
third-rate security convention, at the expense of delaying  serious
corporate business. I'm not sure exactly, but I think that this might be a
bylaws issue and might even be an arguable breach of fiduciary duty. 

The value-add is that I can take back a report that states what was decided,
by whom, and where MHSC has stated/held a position. At the very least, I can
claim some marketing points.

To put it another way, many of us have difficulty justifying ICANN meetings
as it is. It least, the cost is controlled if we only attend the local
meetings (and even that takes some campaigning). In my case, this is the MdR
meeting. This means that physical representation can only happen once per
year for many of us. To then have the only substantive meeting, for us,
turned into a third-rate dog and pony show (SANS is in Chicago that same
week, http://www.sans.org/greatlakes/chicago.htm, for those that really want
an education) basically smothers any representation and voice I may have. 

Would I like to express my views on the ALSC report? You betcha I do. That
was supposed to happen at MdR. Now it is postponed until the Mar02 meeting,
which will be out of reach for me, unless I can find another reason to spend
the money on the same location. Frankly, it isn't worth the effort.

For what reason am I losing my voice in this? ... for some cocamame seminar
series that wont be as good as a professional seminar? Where is the
consensus being built? What issues will be decided? In whose favor will
these issues be decided?

<feh> the words SNAFU and FUBAR apply here and FIDO follows.

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:eric@hi-tek.com]
|> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 8:15 PM
|> To: ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: [ga] Pro-Nouns
|> 
|> 
|> I am sure that Jeffs' citations of various mechanics to 
|> provide security
|> and Roelands more important trip to another forum are far more
|> interesting to sophisticate regarding "Internet Security".
|> 
|> But I pose to them and to all of you that "security" comes 
|> from public
|> policy, from trade agreements, and from commercial demands made by
|> consumers.  Yes it is right here and right now that there is the best
|> group to decide in a policy way what is truly secure.
|> 
|> Does I security mean breach of privacy?
|> 
|> Does I security mean only Norton or only Verisign? Or the Opposite?
|> 
|> How does Micorsoft figure into I security?
|> 
|> Does I security include National Security and what about Cultural
|> Security?
|> 
|> Do most people even understand social security and colos?  Security
|> redundancy and backups and modular?
|> 
|> We got a long way to go and a short time to get there again.
|> 
|> Eric
|> 
|> --
|> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
|> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
|> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
|> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
|> 
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html