RE: Summary of CyberCrime treaty discussions

[David LeBlanc <dleblanc@microsoft.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven M. Christey [mailto:coley@LINUS.MITRE.ORG]


> One Board member has expressed a concern with the Editorial Board as a
> whole making a statement.  That member does not have the authority to
> speak for their organization and is concerned that their organization
> might appear to support the statement by virtue of their affiliation
> with the Board.
> 
> One Board member does not see a problem with having their organization
> support an item, but they would need to see the exact words.  They
> suggested that we could take the same approach as was taken with the
> "DDoS Roadmap" in which various Board members contributed, but the
> Board as a whole was not formally recognized.
> 
> Another Board member privately supports a unified Board effort, but
> cannot speak for their company either.  This member agreed that the
> treaty needs to be changed to remove some of the vagueness.

I want to speak to these points, and make something clear - I do not have
authority to make a public statement on behalf of Microsoft.  However, IF we
come up with something that is reasonable, I will take it to people who _do_
have this authority. Therefore, I would suggest to these other members that
they evaluate whether their companies may support them in this. I understand
that various levels of difficulties may exist, and the possibility of
obtaining permission ranges from could happen to unlikely.

Stuart's text looks good to me, modulo the change suggested by Jim, and I
suggest that we take his response as a working draft.