Stef and all, Einar Stefferud wrote: > I would like to note that the points that Ed is making here are that > we should each stop trying to impose our favourite "one size firs all" > regime on each other, and accept that there is some higher meta level > of understanding that we need to collectively reach. > > Reaching it will be exceedingly difficult if we focus on the faults in > each others past personal statements and future personal statements. > The goal that I see for us to seek is one of finding a higher meta > level abstract understanding of how we can all find legitimacy for our > selves in terms of "intersubjective" relationships. This of course will directly or indirectly depend on how one in their own mind, defined "Legitimacy" as it relates to decision making and as it relates to intersubjective relationships over any network or the Internet. > > > We have achieved much of this in our economic lives, and I believe > that we collectively find (now) that our global economy works because > we have developed an array of tools and processes that support the > satisfaction our economic wants and needs without each imposing our > entire personal belief structure on everyone else. Good observation here Stef, an completely correct. > > > Among these is the required levels of trust to allow the economy to > work. Now, I want to call out the idea that the global social economy > is built on intersubjective trust (as here defined by Ed), for the > simple reason that our social economy consists of networks of networks > of networks of networks, ad infinitum... As Ed so adeptly defined, intersubjective Trust, to some degree must be assumed. This is one of the problems in thinking that has been so frequently shown that does not exist within some parties or groups conducting discussions on these issues with respect to the White Paper and the Stakeholders. > > > The facts are that in this view, intersubjective trust must be earned, > in that it must be induced by the actions of pairs of individuals. To some degree or at some level this is indeed true. But as Ed adeptly pointed out some level of intersubjective truest must be assumed. Otherwise you have chaos. > > > Trust cannot be induced by mere association; trust is not associative > or transitive in an Internet. Good point at some level that varies with each individual or pairs of individuals. > > > But, I am getting far beyond my depth here, and must ask Ed to rescue > me before I get into water above my head. > > So, back to me primary observation here. > > It is not going to be helpful to continue the personal animopsities > that have so severly punctuated our Internet DNS MESS discussions over > the last 3 or 4 years. > > So, lets try to proceed from here to collaborate with each other to > find common cause at higher meta levels. Good idea. And at the same time we must also address quickly and succinctly the problems facing everyone with respect to ICANN. > > > Cheers...\Stef > > >From your message Sat, 27 Mar 1999 20:46:41 +0000: > } > }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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > } > }Regards, > } > }-- > }Jeffrey A. Williams > }CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. > }Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. > }E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > }Contact Number: 972-447-1894 > }Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208 > } > } > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
