RE: Second draft of CyberCrime Treaty Statement

[David LeBlanc <dleblanc@microsoft.com>]

I would propose that we finish the draft as a group. If we open it up any
further, we'll never finish. I support getting others to buy in on this, but
if we ask for comments from a much larger group of people, we may as well
make it an RFC - they'll have ratified the treaty before we ever finish
talking about our objections. We're at a critical point here - let's strike
while the iron is hot.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven M. Christey [mailto:coley@LINUS.MITRE.ORG]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 12:23 PM
> To: cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org
> Subject: Re: Second draft of CyberCrime Treaty Statement
> 
> 
> There seems to be strong support for making this a community-wide
> effort, i.e. expanding it beyond the Board itself.  The issue has
> clearly motivated many Board members, so I think it would be
> inappropriate for MITRE to attempt to "reel it in" and limit it only
> to the Board.  I believe that my management would agree with me on
> this, based on discussions we had earlier this week.
> 
> I have received private emails from some members who would be
> comfortable with signing something as individuals, so to me that's
> additional reason for not making this a Board-only effort.
> 
> Spaf said:
> 
> >I would be happy to host & coordinate this if Mitre management
> >believes it inappropriate.  I did this before with the letter on DCMA
> >and got great response.
> 
> I can't commit us to coordinating this larger effort, but I'll see
> what support we might be able to provide.  Alan Paller also has
> experience with creating these types of "consensus-based position
> papers" (for lack of a better term ;-)
> 
> Once the Board has largely agreed on a draft, I suggest creating a
> separate mailing list for anyone who wants to participate in this
> effort.  That could allow non-Board members to join the dialog, and it
> may help people to coordinate better.
> 
> - Steve
>