My 0.02c:
+1 for Rich on chair. We could def use industry as co-chair minimally. Although the work so far has been fantastic, it does often lack some real world application to market (which is different as real world implementation, which also needs attention).
Having European involvement for example chairing subgroups would help keep it alive and kicking. Even though we're basically road showing around Europe on behalf of STIX and TAXII, the implementors out here are pushing back hard due to implementation complexity.
Having extra goodwill out here will make allot of difference.
Lastly we need a chair or cochair with significant time investment, Bret has shown he can invest this time and I like the no nonesence and lets go attitude. +1 there
J
Sent from my iPhone
On 11 Jun 2015, at 18:01, Peter Allor <> wrote:
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
<graycol.gif>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
