[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Cybercrime treaty
> If we want to write up a draft, I nominate Adam and Scott, who started > this in the first place :-) > > Some non-US Board members haven't commented in on this, including some > from Europe. I'd like to invite them to participate so that any > statement will be international in scope. > > David LeBlanc, when is that computer crime summit you mentioned? Next week. > Finally, we have discussed the possibility of making a statement in > past Editorial Board meetings. Now that we are concretely pursuing > it, we must consider a few issues. First of all, there are about 25 > Board members, but about half of them haven't commented yet. At > various times, some Board members may not be paying close attention to > the Board list because of other work they need to do. Should we have > all Board members approve any statement, or at least each > organization? Do we go so far as to vote on it (and allow for a > NOOP). And what do we do if the statement isn't unanimously agreed > to, and/or not all people have responded? Does the statement then > come from "Members of the CVE Editorial Board?" instead of the Board > as a whole? All good questions. I propose that we do not require unanimous consent, but that we do require a quorum. We could also just list the board members who have contributed to the response. I'd take no response as a NOOP, and objections ought to be carefully considered - we should try to reach a consensus on substantive matters (as opposed to wordsmithing). My $0.02.