Re: Cybercrime treaty

• To: cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org
• Subject: Re: Cybercrime treaty
• From: Dave Mann <dmann@bindview.com>
• Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 13:35:52 -0400
• CC: David LeBlanc <dleblanc@microsoft.com>
• Delivery-Date: Mon May 8 13:37:39 2000
• References: <C183CC073051D31184DA0008C707BBF00B04B4BD@RED-MSG-41>
• Sender: owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org

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

• References:
  • RE: Cybercrime treaty
    • From: David LeBlanc <dleblanc@microsoft.com>

• Prev by Date: Re: Cybercrime treaty
• Next by Date: Re: Cybercrime treaty
• Prev by thread: RE: Cybercrime treaty
• Next by thread: Re: Cybercrime treaty
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread