How this Relates to ICANN From: Privacy versus Security Paradox, was Re: what would be the expected role of an "abuse" contact?

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Ed and all,

Ed Gerck wrote:

> Jeff Williams wrote:
> >
> > Ed and all,
> >
> > Ed Gerck wrote:
> ....
> > > In other words, on the operational level we may perceive that both
> > > Internet and other organizational structures, as well as commerce in
> > > various forms, all operate on similar principles of "networks of
> > > networks" -- which I call intersubjective trust principles [2].  These
> > > can be abstracted, as [2] indicates, and can serve as a common ground
> > > for system design.  However, if these intersubjective trust issues are
> > > ignored, then they become even more important in the hands of attackers
> > > or provide rich grounds for breeding simple bad luck.  A fundamental
> > > dilemma is posed by this situation: either one recognizes and deals with
> > > the intersubjective trust complications or they become more complicated
> > > and threaten to overwhelm.
> >
> >   Good points here Ed, quite correct as well...
> ...
>
> Jeff and all:
>
> Thanks for your general comments and for Einar Setefferud for some
> comments in private just before this thread, which enriched the
> paragraph above. Thanks also for Kent Crispin -- his surprise with the
> paradox of privacy versus security may well illustrate the basic
> paradigm shifts that are needed if we are to understand the tool we use,
> the Internet. Which is intersubjective in several levels, including
> protocol.

  Very true, and something that it appears that the ICANN INterim Board as
well as many others seem to be missing in their thinking.

>
>
> And, as intersubjectivity is stressed we need to abandon more and more
> the vanity of "one size fits all". IMO, we need more sizes, we need more
> opinions, we need more sides. And, we need to deal with this diversity
> not by "ironing it out" but by interoperation.

  Agreed.  More choices and the inter operability of those choices is
what is needed and to some extent is available now.  Unfortunately what
the direction the ICANN Interim Board has decided under the leadership
of Esther Dyson as well as Mike Roberts is away form what you suggest
and what the White Paper required, which are very similar.

>
>
> Which needs collaboration, to be defined not as bunch of people doing
> the same things but, different people doing different things, at
> different times -- for the same objective. We also need collaborative
> standards, to be defined not as "the" way to do things but as *those*
> ways which serve the same objectives.

  Good point here as well Ed.

>
>
> So, how can we represent the "abuse" functionality in DNS contact
> information? IMO, by recognizing that this functionality already exists
> in collaboration with the current use of abuse@domain -- so, there is no
> need to duplicate the same objective. We can, however, stress in an RFC
> *and* in the domain-policy information that the address abuse@domain is
> expected to be operational and responsive to abuse complaints of any
> cause.
>
> Further, if and when the DNS server lame delegation issues are handled,
> the same solutions can be discussed for abuse@domain.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ed Gerck
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck                                 egerck@mcg.org.br

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208