<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [dssa] RE: Revised Draft Confidentiality Guidelines
- To: Don Blumenthal <dblumenthal@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [dssa] RE: Revised Draft Confidentiality Guidelines
- From: "James M. Galvin" <jgalvin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:05:12 -0500
I'll add one more voice to Don's comments and say that I agree with him.
If I understand the concern, Mikey, it's about accountability.
Frankly, I think we're creating process that is overly pejorative for
an infrequently occurring event.
It seems to me that if someone is part of the group then they are part
of the group and they are accountable to the group as a whole. In
other words, all this tracking and record keeping to see who "vouched"
for who and when and why can be straightforwardly replaced by a
"process for entry" and then "maintenance by the group".
If take this line of thinking to its logical extreme, if a person
becomes "fouled", we should be examining all decisions and activities
of this person to date, not just their chain-of-trust that got them in
the group or the chains-of-trust of which they might be a party. Why
are we calling out this one actionable decision of a "foul" person.
I believe that a person in the group, any person, stands on their
merit. Once you are in the group gets to manage whether you are
"foul" or not.
Otherwise, again reaching to a logical extreme, you're suggesting that
if I vouch for someone I have to watch them carefully, with continuous
oversight, because my standing and credibility is at risk for having
invited them to participate. Similarly, as a "vouched for" person, I
have to watch carefully and continuously the person(s) who vouched for
me to make sure they function on the straight and narrow.
Such a set of circumstances does not feel collegial to me.
I apologize if this point was made and "out-voted" in the prior
discussion, but I don't recall the prior discussion which suggests to
me that I missed it. This is a common issue insofar as I've seen it
before in other groups and I have always held this position about it
and I wanted to make sure it was part of the discussion.
Jim
On Jan 26, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Don Blumenthal wrote:
Mikey,
I see your point and agree that the situation is unlikely. It just
strikes
me that the work of a subgroup could be affected by this constant
probationary status. If a voucher's (I wish that OARC had used a term
other than "vouch") trust was well-placed, the situation shouldn't
change
if the person leaves. If it was misplaced, the situation is fouled
regardless of whether that person remains. The last phrase is part
of the
reason that I focused on the "repudiation" interpretation.
Don
On 1/26/12 8:03 AM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
hi Don,
i'm still going to push back. remember -- the goal of this process
is to
protect information, not the feelings of the people handling it. a
key
facet of the vouching process is that in addition to a chain of
*trust*
that's extended to the people vouched-in to the group, there's also a
chain of *accountability* that stretches back to the people doing the
vouching.
so let's say that i vouch for Person 1, they vouch for Person 2,
they in
turn vouch for Person 3. i'm in some way accountable for the
actions of
all three of those people because it's on that initial vouch that all
three of them got into the group. if Person 2 in my chain goes
away, i
really don't want to be accountable for Person 3. i want them
either to
reestablish the chains of accountability *and* trust or drop out of
the
subgroup.
i don't think that the "dropping out" scenario will come up very
often,
because i imagine these secured sub-groups will have a pretty short,
pretty targeted life -- after they're done, i'm expecting them to be
disbanded and other groups formed to handle different questions.
the reason the this is such an "anti" feeling thing is because the
cost
of a failure is so high. i'm quite cheerful about that, because it
also
opens the door to some really useful analysis which in turn may
have a
positive impact for lots of people. but i myself wouldn't vouch
anybody
if i knew that i could be creating "islands" in the chain -- and if i
were an info-provider i probably wouldn't share my data with such a
group.
sorry to be such a grouch. :-)
mikey
On Jan 25, 2012, at 6:58 PM, Don Blumenthal wrote:
Mikey,
I'm OK with all of your thoughts except on the last point. I
understand
the reasoning but the dynamics concern me.
The approach seems to put the vouched-for person in a constant
state of
probation if he or she has to be concerned about getting another
sponsor
each time a previous one might leave. If someone is trusted enough
to be
added, I think that the person should stay until demonstrating an
abuse
of
the trust. Of course, that should apply to us originals as well as
newcomers.
Don
On 1/25/12 6:54 PM, "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
hi all,
i'm pulling the questions into the email flow and taking a crack
at my
understanding of where we're at. in the order they appear in the
draftŠ
Don -- "Will subgroup involvement be required of all members? If
so,
this
point couold be problematic if all of the groups need to handle
confidential information."
My thoughts -- no, sub-group involvement is definitely not
required.
we're imagining that just as there are the "regulars" on the
teleconferences, there will be a subset of the DSSA who will want
to
participate in the subgroups. and conversely, it may turn out
that we
need subgroups to do work on NON-confidential information -- in
which
case this document does not apply.
Don and Jacques -- regarding the separate email-distribution
system --
"use of PGP encryption? Can ICANN provide a secure system for
this
purpose? I see the need for email security but PGP does not work
in any
reasonable fashion with some email systems and clients "
My thoughts -- we left this open in this stage of the draft. we
decided
to treat that puzzle as an implementation detail if and when we got
closer to the point of needing it. we figured that the members
of the
subgroup might have some ideas (or resources) regarding this as
well.
but we left that undecided for now.
Don -- speaking to the kind of information that sub-group members
might
receive -- "I would remove 'technical.' I can imagine situations
where,
for example, the information might involve business processes."
My thoughts -- i agree, good catch
Jacques -- speaking to the "highest standard of protection"
attribute
of
Type1 information -- "this should be furthered defined in this
document
or another, information storage and access, encryption, etcŠ"
My thoughts -- this was intended to a relative term, on the range
of
lowest-protection to highest-protection. again, we left the
details of
the implementation to another day and presumed that when we got
closer
to
actually using this framework we would have a better idea of what
the
requirements might be.
Don -- commenting on the removal of a sub-group member (very last
paragraph) -- "This could happen two ways: a repudiation or one
of the
vouching members dropping out. I suggest clarifying that it apply
only
to
the first case."
My thoughts -- we discussed this very question and came to the
opposite
conclusion, i think mostly based on the way OARC does stuff but i
can't
remember. the notion here is that we're trying to maintain an
actively-affirmed level of trust for all members of the sub-
group. the
risk is that a member could become an "island" in the trust chain
if
one
or both of their "vouch" people leave the group, thus making
info-providers uncomfortable with sharing. so our thought was
that if
a
person lost one or both of their endorsers, they'd probably find it
fairly easy to recruit a few more -- but that if they didn't, we
avoid
potential embarrassment (or worse) by simply having a matter-of-
fact
rule
that removes them from the sub-group until they do.
great comments! thoughts?
mikey
On Jan 25, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Don Blumenthal wrote:
Some thoughts on top of the document from Jacques. As he said, the
document is very good.
Don
From: Jacques Latour
<jacques.latour@xxxxxxx<mailto:jacques.latour@xxxxxxx>>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:10:55 -0500
To: Julie Hedlund
<julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "dssa@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dssa@xxxxxxxxx>"
<dssa@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dssa@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [dssa] RE: Revised Draft Confidentiality Guidelines
Hi,
I just have a few comments/questions in the document, mostly
around
how
we handle sensitive information within the sub-groups.
Other than that, it looks good.
Jacques
From: owner-dssa@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-dssa@xxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:owner-dssa@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Julie Hedlund
Sent: January-25-12 10:40 AM
To: dssa@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:dssa@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [dssa] Revised Draft Confidentiality Guidelines
Dear DSSA-WG members,
Based on the comments received here are revised draft guidelines
with
tracked changes. It will be helpful if you could let us know as
soon
as
possible if you have any further changes.
Best regards,
Julie
Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
<DSSA - WG Confidentiality Guidelines v1 Rev 25 Jan 2012
J.LATOUR -
dmb.doc>
- - - - - - - - -
phone 651-647-6109
fax 866-280-2356
web http://www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
Google,
etc.)
- - - - - - - - -
phone 651-647-6109
fax 866-280-2356
web http://www.haven2.com
handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook,
Google,
etc.)
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|