Re: [ga] Net security's a losing battle

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

To All who have contributed to this marvelous thread a hearty thank you!

A meeting consumed with this is not meeting at all.  You have all taken
great
pains to put forth your position.
Us dotcommoners thank you we have learned a great deal.

The original concept was that it is ludicrous to have a meeting with
this as
the sole agenda.  That is obviously true.

The second point was that this was a ruse to keep us from more pressing
matters
including a charge that it was indecent to use tragedy in such a way, as
to
block normal progressions.

Please refocus on the AT LARGE and the IDN(whatever)RHO and the survival
of the
DNSO.  Our staff and BoD do neither know nor care about security.  I am
sure
that Danny will soon have pearls of truth regarding these matters and we
should
be ready for discussion on that topic.

nine members or six;
what restrictions on membership;
restrict the IDNa or allow it to be wide open;
funding for the GA

Security is a great issue but not here and now.

Eric

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Roeland and all assembly members,
>
> Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > |> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> > |> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 2:26 PM
> > |>
> > |> on 9/28/01 2:14 PM, Patrick Greenwell at
> > |> patrick@stealthgeeks.net wrote:
> > |>
> > |> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
> > |> >> what caught my attention was Scheier's [...] his
> > |> viewpoint that companies are
> > |> reluctant to report cyberattacks because of the stigma,
> > |> making things worse.
> > |> >
> > |> > It's not just stigma, it's a potential liability issue as well.
> > |>
> > |> A company that sets out to hide from legal responsibilities
> > |> is not one the
> > |> industry should be defending. Reluctance to share reports
> > |> amongst colleagues
> > |> for any reason would hamper the industry's overall ability
> > |> to exercise
> > |> damage limitation. I'm not sure that's an acceptable position for an
> > |> organization that is accountable to the public for
> > |> regulating the security
> > |> of the industry's critical infrastructure.
> >
> > - snip -
> >
> > We are not talking about ICANN here, rather a corporation that provides
> > Internet services (ICANN arguably doesn't, being political and all).
> > Security standards were NEVER a part of the ICANN charter, BTW.
>
>   No security was never specifically a requirement.  But stability IS.
> In that Stability IS part of the ICANN Charter, security is an very
> entragal part of that Stability!!!
>
> >
> >
> > |> > I do believe that the idea that Internet security is a
> > |> losing battle is
> > |> > alarmist hogwash.
> > |> >
> > |> > Hit something with a stick for long enough and eventually
> > |> the object of
> > |> > attention is going to take steps to avoid getting hit.
> > |>
> > |> Hit hard enough, the object is going to suffer catastrophic
> > |> failure from a
> > |> single event.
> >
> > Be that as it may, they become some of my better customers. Afterwards,
> > those are the ones that actually listen. Complacency is one of the larger
> > problems here.
>
>   Yes Complacency is the biggest problem.  Ignorance is one that
> feeds that complacency.  Ignoring these concerns that have been
> expressed to the ICANN BoD many times, and ignored, seems
> not excusable to me.  On the other hand, to change the MdR meeting
> to focus ONLY on security concerns is inappropriate and feeds the
> very reaction the terrorists wish to have.  I would not be one to
> advocate giving them that!!  It seems however that the ICANN
> BoD and staff a willing to...
>
> >
> >
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
> --
> 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@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