RE: v 5.4 - from Dave Mann

["Kevin J. Ziese" <ziese@cisco.com>]

Steven,

I'm willing to sign the document as is with the disclaimer -- but I think
the concept of signing it would be strenghtened without affiliations because
the simple inclusion of your affiliation implies some level of legitimacy;
the disclaimer may not even be noticied by CNN types...  In my view, what
we're saying is right regardless of our organizational stations in life --
the fact that many might be unknown raises the troubling question we all
recognize -- CNN/Governments needs to stop focusing on popularizing the 1%
miscreants causing the problem and listen to the 100+ experts warning them
about how harmful their quickjerk reactions are to a safer Global
Internet...

The problem as I see it isn't the Treaty -- it's that no one in Government
ever rarely solicit the experts before the bad legislation gets written.
Just as many scientists in 1945 voiced their concerns to President Roosevelt
about the atomic bomb -- aren't we really saying that there needs to be
deliberate, formal, and careful consult with technologists who understand
the technology and not just with lobbyists that understand the polls de
jour.  Isn't that the type of letter we're trying to put on the table?

I think this we have more strength as a group of 100 variously placed
individuals w/o affiliations vs 100 people and affialiations we then
immediately disclaim :)) -- but I *will* sign as the rest of the group does.

Kevin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org
> [mailto:owner-cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org]On Behalf Of
> Steven M. Christey
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 5:30 PM
> To: cve-editorial-board-list@lists.mitre.org
> Subject: RE: v 5.4 - from Dave Mann
>
>
> Kevin,
>
> I'm not sure I fully understand the extent of your concerns with
> respect to listing organizational affiliation.  Are you concerned that
> even with an "informational purposes only" disclaimer, that some
> readers might misinterpret the document as being sponsored by the
> affiliated organization?  Would you be uncomfortable (or would it be
> administratively difficult) signing a document and listing your
> organization, even if the document has a disclaimer?  What about
> others who have similar concerns?
>
> Spaf, you suggested that some companies could make separate official
> statements.  If we can do that, it seems like that reduces (somewhat)
> the importance of listing affiliations on an "experts" letter - at
> least for those who aren't comfortable doing so.  Also, it seems like
> there won't be a high percentage of people who would be unable to list
> their affiliation (assuming a disclaimer).  So if we have 100
> signatures, 90 of which list an organizational affiliation, I don't
> see that reducing the impact of the statement too much.  On the other
> hand, I do appreciate the, um, utility of naming such a well-known
> organization as Cisco.  But if it comes down to a choice between "no
> Cisco and no Kevin Ziese" or "Kevin Ziese but no Cisco," personally
> I'd choose the latter ;-)
>
> - Steve
>
>