Re: Cybercrime treaty
David LeBlanc wrote:
>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'll look at all the responses, but I'm not sure if half the Board has
commented yet. I did send emails to Board members who haven't said
anything, so it is probably safe to assume that with the exception of
those on vacation or travel, all Board members are at least aware at
this time. I like the idea of listing the specific members who
contributed to the response, especially if we don't hear from
>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).
Nobody has sent any objections to me yet, and I did bring this issue
up to a few Board members who I thought might have concerns (one is
looking at it, the other hasn't responded). It may be that making a
general statement such as "this item is too vague, and here's why"
could be agreed to by contributing members, and benign enough that
NOOP's may not mind.