Re: [ga] ICP-4 Internet Security

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Chung,
you explained me better by private mail what you meant. I respond here.

At 22:41 05/10/01, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:
>Dear Jefsey Morfin,
>ICP-2 was initially drafted from ASO. Now, what draft document on this 
>topic is coming up from PSO? Or do they have any WG on this topic? Why 
>DNSO should first take initiative for this job?

Stuart has taken the lead and called upon everyone in dedicating the MdR 
meeting to Security. My point is; it is the role of ICANN to educate the 
world on the matter, otherwise the ICANN has no 'raisond'être'.

I accept Stuart's position who calls for a crash internal education first. 
But I think no one else than ourselves can give us that education. Each of 
us knowing a part and no one outside of the SOs knowing anything worth: 
otherwise they would be here if they felt concerned and because the issue 
mainly concerns our own interactions within the ICANN and the governance. I 
do not want to waste my time with computer gurus or big company brass hats. 
I am interested in ".mil" people, in GAC intelligence experts. In NATO 
Members of the GA.

So rather than talk shows, the challenge of a clear target will make people 
performing better and motivated by usefulness. It will also keep media 
excited and participative instead of negative.

Stuart was unfortunate in writing ICP-3 by his own. He could be more 
fortunate with ICP-4 if we all  shared with him. The matter and the event 
justify far more an ICP.

I do not think anyone in particular should take the lead: Everyone should 
contribute. I started as BC. Up to the GA now. Not as DNSO but as the only 
permitted one (IMHO there should be GAs at every SO, and every NIC: these 
are the true, active, motivated and cheap to manage @large). Now it is up 
to Stuart to gather what comes up, and to the BoD to decide of the 
orientations of that ICP-4 Internet Security. And to us to kill it :-)

But we do not want to talk rocket science. We want debate bombs, power 
failures, hijacking, financial disasters, flooding, recession, digital, 
financial and lingual divides, hackers on registry systems, legal actions, 
crooks, viruscoms, policy, intelligence, earth breaks, governance and 
dominance, network and social models, etc...

Jefsey


>On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > Ladies and Gentlemen,
> > I do disagree with Stuart's approach of the next MdR meeting (I accept 
> that
> > there are certainly pressures). My main reason why is the poor security
> > image it gives of the Internet, adding to the weakness ICANN represents as
> > being unique in a totally distributed system.
> >
> > Now things are committed, I would like to propose a positive way out
> > everyone could agree upon.
> >
> > Instead of an "Internet Security Instant Manager training", it would be to
> > commonly prepare the ICP-4 "Internet Security" document through the launch
> > of a clean shirt review everyone could share, including the public through
> > a call to the press (so they would help rather than harass us).
> >
> > 1. the coming days could be dedicated to gather themes for a framework. I
> > initiated a WG Security to present a BC document and started gathering
> > points at icann-sme: I will publish these inputs to help GA commenting and
> > adding to it, so it becomes a common effort that Staff could use.
> >
> > 2. the target would be that in coming to MdR everyone could have some
> > elements to share from his  own sector. Not to be educated about something
> > very simple but highly distributed no one other than us knows, but to 
> share
> > our know-how and suggestions in shaping the ICP-4 frame.
> >
> > 3. I am sure this approach will lead to a reconsideration of the ICANN
> > structure. Security is an highly professional issue. The ICANN illness 
> IMHO
> > is amateurism. A common effort clearly focused towards a professional 
> issue
> > may only help us clarifying and probably speeding up the other pending 
> issues.
> >
> > My 3 euro cents.
> > Jefsey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
>--
>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