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: firstname.lastname@example.org
Senior Security Analyst || phone: 508-485-7737 x254
BindView Corporation || fax: 508-485-0737