<div dir="ltr"><p style="margin-bottom:0in">Dear all,
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">Since there's been some discussion
lately about Best Bits statements (what constitutes a BB statement,
how they're developed, etc.) on the behalf of the interim steering
committee I'd like to direct you to the wiki draft procedures. These
draft procedures are posted on the Best Bits website
(<a href="http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/" target="_blank">http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/</a>)
and are open to discussion/editing. They have been posted in this
format since before the Best Bits Bali meeting, though admittedly we
could do a better job of pointing people to them, which is why we're
writing now :-)</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">In reviewing these procedures in the
current climate, it is evident that we should probably develop more
specific guidance for statements or inputs developed in very time
sensitive situations in response to a particular meeting/process.
Agreed on procedures for the interplay between those participating
actively in a particular process and the broader network could have
helped to avoid some of the challenges we've faced post-NetMundial.</p>
<p style="margin-bottom:0in">Finally, please note that this is a
general friendly reminder and not directed at a particular NetMundial
statement or even limited to NetMundial. We can all do a better job
at following these procedures and continuing to shape them to meet
our needs. Please let us know if you have any questions/concerns (either on this thread or at <a href="mailto:steering@lists.bestbits.net">steering@lists.bestbits.net</a>) and
fellow interim steering committee members, please jump in if I forgot
or misrepresented anything.</p>
<h2>Producing Best Bits statements [RFC]</h2>
<ul><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">Statements are not issued by Best
Bits but by individual endorsers, and public statements about the
statement should be worded with care to avoid suggesting otherwise.
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in"><i>In exceptional cases where a
large proportion of participants are physically present or otherwise
actively express their views about a statement, and it appears that
it enjoys full consensus of those participants, they may resolve
that it be issued as a statement “of the Best Bits coalition”.</i>
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">Anyone may propose posting a
statement (eg. joint letter, submission) be posted to the Best Bits
website. Any such proposal should be accompanied by either:
</p>
<ul><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">a proposed text, accompanied by a
description of the process by which it was drafted and a proposed
process and timetable for finalising and posting it for
endorsement; or
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">a proposed process and timetable
for drafting, finalising and posting the text for endorsement.
</p>
</li></ul>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">The process and timetable may vary
depending on context and urgency, but in general:
</p>
<ul><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">the text should be finalised by a
fluid working group that is open to civil society participants from
the main Best Bits mailing list (but which might work on a separate
mailing list, which could be closed);
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">the timescale for drafting the
text should normally be at least 48 hours;
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">the draft text should normally be
posted to the main Best Bits mailing list for comment at least
another 48 hours before being posted to the website;
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">there should be an adequate
balance between inclusiveness of the initial drafting process, and
the finality of the text. (In other words, we would seldom agree to
post a text that is final and that only a few groups from one part
of the world drafted.)
</p>
</li></ul>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">Objections to the posting of a
text for endorsement may be made at the stage of its initial
proposal, or at a later stage when the draft text is posted for
comment, and can be made both on strategic and on substantive
grounds. Possible grounds for opposition include:
</p>
<ul><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">The statement is not on-topic for
Best Bits.
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">Any proposed statement should not
go against the Best Bits goals but should in fact further those.
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">The process and timetable are not
realistic, or are not inclusive enough.
</p>
</li><li><p style="margin-bottom:0in">The process and timetable have
not been complied with.
</p>
</li></ul>
</li><li><p>However, consensus is not required in order for a text to be
posted. If significant opposition to the posting of the text has
been voiced on the main list and cannot be resolved, the steering
committee may make a final decision about whether or not to post the
statement, in consultation with at least one proponent of the text
and at least one opponent.
</p>
</li></ul>All the best, <br>Deborah <br clear="all"><div><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font face="garamond, serif">Deborah Brown</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font face="garamond, serif">Senior Policy Analyst</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<font face="garamond, serif">Access | <a href="http://accessnow.org" target="_blank">accessnow.org</a></font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<font face="garamond, serif">@deblebrown</font></div><div style="color:rgb(136,136,136);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><font face="garamond, serif">PGP 0x5EB4727D</font></div></div>
</div></div>