[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Cybercrime treaty



David LeBlanc wrote:
> 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).

If there is a significant dissenting opinion, couldn't that
be captured in a second, attached statement.  I'm thinking
of how courts often handle the presence of dissenting views.


--
==============================================================
Dave Mann                ||   e-mail:  dmann@bos.bindview.com
Senior Security Analyst  ||    phone:  508-485-7737   x254
BindView Corporation     ||      fax:  508-485-0737

 
Page Last Updated: May 22, 2007