Gordon,
Thanks for the great and highly educational post about "Trust",
what it is, and how it applies to our quagmire.
You sent:
Quote from - Chap. 7, Definition of Trust in security and discussion,
copied under authorization, in Peter Williams, et.al., "Digital
Certificates: Applied Internet Security" Addison-Wesley, ISBN
0-20-130980-7, 400 pgs, CD-ROM, Oct 1998.
>From "Digital Certificates...":
"In Information Theory, information has nothing to do with knowledge or
meaning. In the context of Information Theory, information is simply that
which is transferred from a source to a destination, using a communication
channel. If, before transmission, the information is available at the
destination then the transfer is zero. Information received by a party is
that what the party does not expect -- as measured by the uncertainty of
the party as to what the message will be."
Steve:
In the context of list usage, because people's intellectual
responses to others' newly created and dispersed information are
unpredictable, all of the "output" that is transferred from one responder
which is generated to an entire list is, by definition, information, or
potential information, depending upon what is known by the recipient. This
information-theory-based fact makes each and every person who is able to
participate on any list, a potential source of valuable information to the
entire list.
So, if one recognizes the importance of topically and
geographically organized lists to generate potential information from any
individual at the network edge, then the present situation of ICANN's lack
of participation in the open and transparent lists as representing one of
three possible situations.
First, ICANN Interim Board Members already know everything, which
has been clearly demonstrated to not be the case. Or, secondly, they
choose to only gather information from within their own sphere of contacts,
ignoring the legitimately recognized need of the "community" to participate
in the sharing of information, and the building of rough consensus.
Lastly, maybe they would like to gather information form the edges, but
don't know how. The truth seems to be some combination of the latter two
cases.
>From "Digital Certificates...":
Shannon's contribution here goes far beyond the definition (and derived
mathematical consequences) that "information is what you do not expect".
His zeroth-contribution (so to say, in my counting) was to actually
recognize that unless he would arrive at a real-word model of information
as used in the electronic world, no logically useful information model
could be set forth!
Steve:
We have the opportunity to implement a communications channel
design method which recognizes the value of individual Internet users to
create valuable information. To a degree, some of this is already
occurring on investment lists to drive up the value of certain stocks in
real time, or near real time.
Applying the same principles to bringing order to the process of
creating a globally applicable standard operation for managing names and
numbers for Internet usage, would seem to be the best use of our time.
Like building an "Investor Website" we can recognize that each and every
individual is an "investor" in the Internet. They invest their time, their
energy. Creating a list framework for their participation is an important
interim step toward bringing "rough consensus" into fruition.
Cook writes (I think it's Cook):
Now, in the Internet world, we have come to a stand off: either we develop
a real-world model of trust or we cannot continue to deal with limited and
fault-ridden trust models, as the Internet expands from a parochial to a
planetary network for e-commerce, EDI, communication, etc.
Steve:
"From Parochial to Planetary(sm)" would be a great tag line for the
decentralization of information which would happen over time by a service
built from the multi-level list framework which I have provided to the list
for its consumption. I've already made a proposal to ORSC, I've made a
similar proposal to ICANN, and I've requested that the ITAA be one of the
chief sponsors of the framework.
>From "Digital Certificates...":
And, what would be this "real-world model of trust" for the Internet world?
Here, akin to Information Theory, trust has nothing to do with friendship,
acquaintances, employee-employer relationships, loyalty, clearance,
betrayal and other hard to define concepts. In the concept of Generalized
Certification Theory (see http://www.mcg.org.br/cie.htm), trust is simply
"that which is essential to a communication channel but which cannot be
transferred from a source to a destination using that channel". "
Steve:
In the context of the definition of trust above, and using the
language of telecommunications, trust is an "essential facility" to
insuring that the Internet and commerce happens, period. "That which is
essential to a communication channel but which cannot be transferred from a
source to a destination using that channel". "
If it cannot be transferred, it is a critical part of the
infrastructure, of decentralized communications, and of planetary commerce.
So, how is it that ICANN does not have our trust, which is defined
as being an "essential facility" component (above)? The answer lies in its
transient nature.
ICANN's Board is transitory. ICANN's Board has interests which are
non-disclosed to the "investors" (individual people who invest their time
and energy in the success of the system) and their interests are
transitory, and can be transferred from their source (themselves) to
another destination (some other party with its own self-interest).
To build trust, ICANN must immediately prevent the transfer of any
information which is essential to the long term success and stability of
the management system for names and numbers, through their insular private
communications channels (private lists which have no apparent interest in
receiving information from its constituency).
Secondly, ICANN (or someone/something else) must immediately freeze
the interests of those who are transitory in their interest. Since each
ICANN Interim Board Member represents the interests of other parties, their
own self-interests, and those of other parties, must be removed from
influencing their behavior and decision-making, especially because it is
presently occurring in a closed vacuum.
Once interests of the ICANN Board are aligned with the humble truth
that they do not know all information, they will see the need to open up
new information channels more clearly (using the principles of Information
Theory outlined above).
Historical protocol of the IETF which is transferring power to
IANA, therefore to ICANN, is that "rough consensus" must be built from
within the "community" constituency, and since the atomic unit of the
entire community is the individual, trust should be built upon the
essential function of providing channels for individuals, anywhere, anytime
to participate in the information gathering process, which is a key element
of the consensus-building process.
Informative comments are welcome to this information channel, which
is a service called THE i CHANNEL(r), providing decentralized multi-level
list filtering services at the atomic level of the Internet, "i"ndividuals.
Stephen J. Page
T: 925-454-8624
(c) Copyright, 1999. Stephen J. Page. All Rights Reserved.
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
