Re: [ga] ICP-4

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

Dear fine Member,

I am but a lowly dotcommoner.  But I understand your question and ask of you: how is
it that you do not know?  I of course ask forgiveness for being so rude as to
suggest that you may have not perfect knowledge of this subject and of course I am
wrong and apologize for my Western crass behavior.

But for the good of my people I must beg forgiveness and ask that you speak further
on you understanding of this most important manner.  If there is some failure in my
understanding I would be most grateful to learn of it and I believe you could well
inform me.

With respect and apologies,
Eric

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?
> Could you explain it?
>
> Regards,
>
> Chun Eung Hwi
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Chun Eung Hwi
> General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82) 2- 583-3033
> Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
> Seoul, 158-600, Korea       | eMail:   ehchun@peacenet.or.kr
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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