I like how this proposal balances the desire of some in the community to have Rich continue his role as shepherd along with a term limit on the role of chair.
The six month time period where we have a chair alone seems prudent too – we may need even a year to figure out the right organizational roles and responsibilities.
== down in the weeds ==
I support the idea of a co-chair, because I like the idea of a permanent succession plan in the event that x, y or z thing happens involving the Chair. However,
I am not sure whether or not the co-chair should automatically be the chair in such an event.
I support the criteria Trey came up with below, understanding why #3 should be optional. I must admit that personally I hope for the emergence of strong non-US
leaders to champion the standards. I think we would be wise, before we vote for such a person or persons, to figure out exactly what the co-chair(s) will be responsible for as it relates to the structure of the organization, our committees and our decision
making process. We might be just as successful having a small group of individuals to counter the power of the chair.
However, I defer to others on the veto / override function, hopefully there are existing best practices for such a situation.
Thanks,
Alex
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of Trey Darley
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 9:30 AM
To: Peter Allor
Cc: Aharon Chernin; Jordan, Bret; Carol Geyer; Chet Ensign; ; Peter F Brown; Richard Struse; Robin Cover; Scott McGrath; Terry MacDonald;
Subject: Re: [cti] Inviting nominations for Chair of Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) TC,
Hey, y'all -
There's seems to be clear consensus on Rich for CTI chair. I think everyone agrees that Rich has done yeoman’s work overseeing and nurturing the development
of these emerging standards over the past several years.
The shift to OASIS is pretty huge. We don't want too much change all at once.
I've been participating in these discussions for a couple of years now. Just in the past couple of weeks, it's been remarkable all the new names popping
up on the mailing lists. Based on what I've seen since the transition to OASIS was announced, I'm willing to bet that the CTI community _doubles_ over the course of the next six months.
I propose the following compromise:
0) We have Rich act as sole chair during the six month period immediately following the initial round of voting.
1) We institute a one-year term on all chair positions.
2) We give the chair a veto on co-chair candidates and require a 60% majority to override the chair's veto.
Beyond that, I think the four essential criteria already spelled out are valuable considerations but needn't be formalized.
Cheers,
Trey
--
Trey Darley
Senior Security Engineer
Soltra | An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company
+32/494.766.080 |
www.soltra.com
From: Peter Allor <>
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 10:43
To: Trey Darley
Cc: Aharon Chernin; Jordan, Bret; Carol Geyer; Chet Ensign; ; Peter F Brown; Richard Struse; Robin Cover; Scott McGrath; Terry MacDonald;
Subject: Re: [cti] Inviting nominations for Chair of Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) TC,
Trey,
I think you and I are really close.
Point:
0) YES
1) Yes
2) Preferred, not mandatory
3) ABSOLUTELY
Pete
(best for me to be 'Pete' and Peter Brown to be "Peter")
Trey
Darley ---06/12/2015 04:35:30 AM---Hey, Pete - Note that I specified "an academic-cum-actual security researcher with dirt under their
From:
Trey Darley <>
To:
Peter Allor/Atlanta/IBM@IBMUS, Peter F Brown <>
Cc:
Aharon Chernin <>, "Jordan, Bret" <>, Carol Geyer <>, "Chet Ensign" <>, ""
<>, Richard Struse <>, "Robin Cover" <>, Scott McGrath <>, Terry MacDonald <>, "" <>
Date:
06/12/2015 04:35 AM
Subject:
Re: [cti] Inviting nominations for Chair of Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) TC,
Hey, Pete -
Note that I specified "an academic-cum-actual security researcher with dirt under their fingernails", not merely an academic. Nor am I against a private-sector co-chair, but "preferably _not_ a vendor".
The point is, if we agree on the need for a co-chair, here are the essential qualifications:
0) someone practical
1) someone neutral
2) someone non-US
3) someone that isn't going to drive Rich crazy (ie, compatible personalities == enhanced collaboration)
Cheers,
Trey
--
Trey Darley
Senior Security Engineer
Soltra | An FS-ISAC & DTCC Company
www.soltra.com
From: <> on behalf of Peter Allor
<>
Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 18:01
To: Peter F Brown
Cc: Aharon Chernin; Jordan, Bret; Carol Geyer; Chet Ensign; ; Richard Struse; Robin Cover; Scott McGrath; Terry MacDonald; ; Trey Darley
Subject: RE: [cti] Inviting nominations for Chair of Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) TC,
As a data point, in discussing adoption of STIX/TAXII with National Government CSIRTs and other large corporate international organizations, a US/DHS only way forward, has /
is an inhibitor to formally using STIX/TAXII in the recent past.
I am aware of some USG elements liking that we demonstrate a broad representation.
So, I endorse and support Rich, both for his leadership and technical passion as well as vision for this effort. And will bow to what the group decides.
But would heavily suggest that we have someone else assist Rich in his chair duties as his co-chair. This is more about perception and adoption than about substance/content. And no, I am not soliciting an academic. We really need and want 'industry'
(across the board) to use this.
Pete
Peter F Brown ---06/11/2015 11:25:01 AM---+1 The significance only means something if we *make* it mean something.
From: Peter F Brown <>
To: "" <>, Trey Darley <>, Peter Allor/Atlanta/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: Chet Ensign <>, Aharon Chernin <>, Terry MacDonald <>, "Jordan, Bret" <>,
"" <>, Richard Struse <>, "Scott McGrath" <>, Robin Cover <>, Carol Geyer <>
Date: 06/11/2015 11:25 AM
Subject: RE: [cti] Inviting nominations for Chair of Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) TC,
+1
The significance only means something if we *make* it mean something.
I understand that there might be concern about an OASIS TC being seen just to do DHS’s bidding. However, expanding on what Tony rightly says, there are many TCs where there are initial worries that one party (public, private, research, not-for-profit) is set
to run the show – but the nature of the open process, transparency, and engagement from all sides will do more to “disappear” that myth than any “fix”.
This is not an argument against co-chair(s) per se: just that, if we need such a role, it will become apparent quickly enough.
All the best,
Peter
From: Tony Rutkowski [mailto:]
Sent: 11 June, 2015 08:11
To: Trey Darley; Peter Allor; Peter F Brown
Cc: Chet Ensign; Aharon Chernin; Terry MacDonald; Jordan, Bret; ; Richard Struse; Scott McGrath; Robin Cover; Carol Geyer
Subject: Re: [cti] Inviting nominations for Chair of Cyber Threat Intelligence (CTI) TC,
The world of international technical committees in
this sector contains numerous examples of chairs
from government agencies. Furthermore, Rich
is rather more than an agency representative in
this context. From both a substantive perspective
as well as effective leadership and "messaging,"
his chair position is important.
As someone who leads the ETSI equivalent activity,
(and formerly led the equivalent in ITU-T) Rich's
chair position probably enhances the global
assimilation of the CTI suite.
--tony
On 2015-06-11 10:45 AM, Trey Darley wrote:
<snip>
However, I suggest the following, especially for us 'Americans' to consider. We need to have another individual as a co-chair. Simply put, to not be something that OASIS is adopting only for the US Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).
</snip>
--
________________________________
Anthony Michael Rutkowski
EVP, Industry Standards & Regulatory Affairs
+1 703 999 8270
________________________________
Yaana Technologies LLC
542 Gibraltar Drive
Milpitas CA 95035 USA
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms and conditions available at http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message.
