<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div>Hi Matthew,<br><br></div>I share Pranesh's concerns about how this was handled. I appreciate tight deadlines sometimes complicate matters, but if the letter was posted on the site, shouldn't at least an email have been sent to the entire group to flag the existence of the letter after it was finalised? Why is it circulating on twitter, but not here? <br><br></div>As a refresher for everyone, I'm posting the BB rules regarding statements below this email (they can also be found at <a href="http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/">http://bestbits.net/wiki/main/procedures/</a>). Please note that they say: "we would seldom agree to post a text that is final and that only a few
groups from one part of the world drafted". They also note that if the "process and timetable have not been complied with", this is an acceptable ground for opposition to the statement being put up on Best Bits.<br><br></div>Clearly, Pranesh is completely in his right to raise the concerns that he does. It would be good to hear opinions from others on this as well.<br><br></div>Thanks and best regards,<br></div>Anja<br><br></div><u>Producing Best Bits Statements</u><br><div><div><div><div><ol><li>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.</li><li>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 network.</li><li>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:</li><ul><li>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</li><li>a proposed process and timetable for drafting, finalising and posting the text for endorsement.</li></ul><li>The process and timetable may vary depending on context and urgency, but in general:</li><ul><li>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);</li><li>the timescale for drafting the text should normally be at least 48 hours;</li><li>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;</li><li>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.)</li></ul><li>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:</li><ul><li>The statement is not on-topic for Best Bits.</li><li>Any proposed statement should not go against the Best Bits principles and goals but should in fact further those.</li><li>The process and timetable are not realistic, or are not inclusive enough.</li><li>The process and timetable have not been complied with.</li></ul><li>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.</li></ol><br></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 25 May 2016 at 14:40, Matthew Shears <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org" target="_blank">mshears@cdt.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Hi Pranesh, all<br>
</p>
<p>This letter was an effort by a small number of US and intl civil
society groups to address some unfortunate characterizations and
spin related to human rights and free expression issues associated
with the IANA Transition that have arisen over the past month in
the media and on Capitol Hill.</p>
<p>The letter was intended to be available for the Senate hearing
yesterday and to be entered in the record. It addresses a number
of concerns that were raised in the hearing. The statement was
only finalized Monday night. <br>
</p>
<p>I understand that you have concerns about the power dynamics at
play in the IANA transition but that is not the purpose of this
letter. </p>
<p>It is up on the BestBits site for sign on. For those who agree
with the contents of the letter I encourage you to sign up.<br>
</p>
<p>Thanks!<br>
</p>
<p>Matthew<br>
</p><span class="">
<br>
<div>On 5/25/2016 9:11 AM, Pranesh Prakash
wrote:<br>
</div>
</span><blockquote type="cite"><span class="">Dear
all,
<br>
I recently came across this:
<br>
<a href="http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/" target="_blank">http://bestbits.net/iana-transition/</a>
<br>
<br>
However, I never saw its contents being discussed on this list.
Did I somehow fail to receive those messages?
<br>
<br>
I am quite concerned about the way the letter takes an uncritical
global North approach to the IANA transition, and refuses to
contend with the power dynamics at play.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The undersigned civil society and public
interest groups believe that the IANA transition is a positive
development for the Domain Name System and for the Internet at
large, and that the process to develop the transition proposal
has been a successful expression of multistakeholder approaches
to Internet decision-making.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have pointed out in the past that this IANA transition process
fails the requirements of the NetMundial Statement, and was
primarily led by corporate interests in the US, and men:
<br>
<a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder" target="_blank">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-multistakeholder-community-neither-global-nor-multistakeholder</a>
<br>
<br>
Regards,
<br>
Pranesh
<br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</span><pre>____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
</font></span></blockquote><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | <a href="http://cdt.org" target="_blank">cdt.org</a>
E: <a href="mailto:mshears@cdt.org" target="_blank">mshears@cdt.org</a> | T: +44.771.247.2987
</pre>
</font></span></div>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:<br>
<a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>The Internet Democracy Project<br><br>+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br><a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br></div>
</div>