再保险:网络犯罪公约

>如果我们想写一个草稿,我提名亚当和斯科特,这首先开始>:-)> >的一些非美国董事会成员还没有评论,包括一些来自欧洲的>。我想邀请他们参加,这样任何>语句将国际范围。> >大卫·勒布朗,计算机犯罪峰会你提到是什么时候?下个星期。>最后,我们已经讨论过的可能性做出声明>过去编辑委员会会议。现在我们具体追求>,我们必须考虑几个问题。首先,大约有25 >董事会成员,但约有一半还没有发表评论。>不同时期,一些董事会成员可能不是密切关注>董事会名单,因为他们需要做其他工作。我们应该>所有董事会成员批准任何声明,或者至少每个>组织?我们走这么远来投票表决(和允许>等待)。 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.