RE: Cybercrime treaty

[David LeBlanc <dleblanc@microsoft.com>]

> 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.