[gnso-ff-pdp-may08] Meeting followup -- "Response Process" conversation

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all,

This is the promised email to launch the continuation of the 
discussion we started on the phone call today (the meat of this 
discussion starts right at the 60 minute mark in the MP3 of the call 
for those of you who want to review the conversation again).
Here's my (somewhat editorialized) summary of the conversation;

Suggestion -- make the response processes more uniform across the 
parties, perhaps securing or certifying the information-flows between 
those entities.
Concern --  be careful about giving new authority to trusted/private 
entities that are outside the normal process of law, as processes 
that privilege one group of entities over others can make it easier 
for those privileged parties to take away the rights of others.
And here's a series of ideas, having listened to that conversation 
again.  I can see a place to agree here.  Maybe a series of 
principles would be in order, and here's the start of that 
list.  Let's go into "suggest changed wording, and defend your 
changes" mode on this.

- Focus process-improvement efforts on existing entities, strive not 
to create new ones
- Limit security and certification to information-exchange processes, 
not the data that is exchanged (secure the data-flows, share the data-stores)
- Do not imbue private entities with the powers that should be 
reserved for governments
Please propose changes to the "proposal", "concern" or 
"principles."  And feel free to add another section if it's 
needed.  But let's try to be terse in our conversation, sorta like 
the final stretch of the "Definition" conversation.
Have at it.

m










voice: 651-647-6109
fax: 866-280-2356

web: www.haven2.com