**CRT Teleconference**

**Thursday, June 8, 2006**

**10 am EDT**

[Participants]{.underline}: Allan Eustis, Alan Goldfine, David Flater,
Sharon Laskowski,

John Wack, Adam Ambrogi, Steve Berger, Dan Schutzer,

Wendy Havens

[Agenda]{.underline}

1\) Administrative updates (Allan E.)

2\) - Revisions to test reports (David F.)

Note: The document to read is at
<http://vote.nist.gov/TGDC/crt/TestReports-20060531.html> :

          - Public Information Package

          - As time permits, revisit other topics from May 4 telecon.

   

3\) COTS memo (see <http://vote.nist.gov/TGDC/crt/SB-COTS-20060606.doc)>
(Stephen B.)

 4) Any other items: Note next telcon is Thursday, June 29^th^ @ 10:00
am EDT

Meeting began at 10:35 AM

**1)** [Administrative Updates (AE)]{.underline}

\- Resolution task matrix & project management tables will be sent to
TGDC members. (They are now posted at:
<http://vote.nist.gov/TGDC/vvsg07.html> ) under **\<VVSG 2007 Project
Management Documents\>**

-Introduction to the committee; Adam Ambrogi of the EAC, who will be day
to day communications link to EAC leadership. We all believe it is
beneficial to have Adam on board to help NIST and the TGDC interface
with EAC ; At any time he offers the opportunity for anyone to email him

at: aambrogi@eac.gov or phone him on his direct line at 202-566-3105.

2\) Public [Information Package (PIP) and Test Reports:]{.underline}

-David Flater reviews two major items of interest; certification
plan/report &public information package issues. Discussion of Test Plan
and test Report Requirements:

-Public Info packages is a task defined by TGDC Resolution 28-05

\- B. Hancock at EAC is also working VVSG 2005 test revision reports. BG
will forward relevant documents to DF.

-PIP to be delivered to the EAC as a prerequisite for certification. If
the voting system is certified, the EAC would then publish the PIP.
Discussion of minimal requirements ensued.

\- DF noted that if the minimal requirements on report content cannot be
met without impinging on proprietary information, the test lab is
entitled to reject the test data package.

-SB noted FOIA exclusion as minimal protection w.r.t. release of public
test reports: publicly obtainable information vs.
confidentiality/confidential material (intellectual property/trade
secrets/ source code)

\- SB suggests looking at FCC web site at equipment test reports to see
amount that is public (schematics etc.)

\- Test report needs to support an independent decision by a test
reviewer. Tests should be reproducible. Test should allow inspector or
reviewer to validate whether equipment delivered (to the state or
locality) is the equipment that was certified.

\- SB noted the need to highlight election management
procedures/policies to assist state and local reviewers during
acceptance testing. A discussion of procedural documentation ensued.

\- EAC undertaking a three year project to compile and publish an
Elections Management Guidelines document.

-Suggestion by SB that required part of the test report would be
guidance to state officials (could evolve into a check list.). SB also
suggested that test report could provide details on optional functions
to state officials (i.e ballot rotation, n of m selections, etc.). DF
noted relevant work on classes of equipment in this regards. See:
<http://vote.nist.gov/TGDC/crt/DWF-WorkingDraft-20060605/DWF-WorkingDraft-20060605.html#classtop>

-Discussion of "minimal" information for state to make a decision. DF
noted that minimalism clarifies information required by the EAC without
prescribing an outline that could become outdated.

-SB noted the possibility of passing (certifying) sub-standard equipment
in pass/fail environment. Pointers to procedural requirements become
essential; in some states only 3 to 4 hours to review equipment. The
state and local reviewers need a test report that indicates sufficient
user documentation. DF proposed distinguishing user documentation and
the test report material. DF also noted potential conflict ensuring that
reference-able procedural documents are in place along with product
standard requirements. (You need to include linkage.) SB noted that this
could be an either/or list.

-Discussion of a specified outline for test report to include extended
subsets, a series of PDF documents covering attestation, hardware,
software, witness build etc.

-DF noted that you need to define outline format. It is not currently in
VVSG 2005. SB will send suggestion for an outline format to all. DF will
review.

-Discussion ensued on current short comings of informative list. SB
suggested process mind set.

[3) COTS memo]{.underline}

Due to time constraints, postponed agenda item #3 the COTS memo; It was
agreed to make this a discussion item for the next telcon . See:
<http://vote.nist.gov/TGDC/crt/SB-COTS-20060606.doc>.

Next CRT Teleconference is scheduled for Thursday, June 29^th^ @ 10:00
am