[bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA
joy
joy at apc.org
Sun Jun 16 16:43:44 EDT 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
thanks Nnenna - a great suggestion
Joy
On 17/06/2013 6:41 a.m., genekimmelman at gmail.com wrote:
> +1 with a few groups available for follow up by phone/email
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
> Date:
> To: Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> Cc: Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org>,michael gurstein
<gurstein at gmail.com>,Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>,Kevin Bankston
<kbankston at cdt.org>,"<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>"
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>,irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org,webwewant at googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of
international civil society letter to Congress on NSA
>
>
> Thinking it might be good to send as BEST BITS COALITION of
International Organisations, represented by a "member" known to congress
and "Dear Senators and Representatives"
>
> Upside, the "international" character is there, and the influence +
national recognition will be kept. If there is follow-up, it will come
via the COALITION representative, supported by other Best Bits signatory
"members"
>
> My 2 cents
>
> Nnenna
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Gene Kimmelman
<genekimmelman at gmail.com <mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I think it should be addressed to each senator and representative
("Dear Senators and Representatives") -- no need to be individualized
unless someone can just send it through an existing list.
>
> I think it should be sent from Best Bits, with a characterization
of who we are, plus any organization/individual involved (with phone and
email contact person) that desires to field inquiries from Congress --
so long as the list isn't bigger than 5-6 people/groups, I think that
gives members of Congress a sense of who they can reach out to for more
information. Obviously, those who volunteer would need to agree to
provide responses, and limit their engagement under the Best Bits rubric
to the substance of the letter (and speak separately for their own
organization).
>
> On Jun 16, 2013, at 11:36 AM, Deborah Brown wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I wanted to send a quick note regarding delivery of the letter to
Congress. I've been working with CDT and Free Press to figure this out
and we now have a few options to bring back to the group.
>>
>> From what we were able to determine, the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) is best equipped to send the letter to Congress through
their backend and they could route it through whatever email sending
address we want.
>>
>> Kevin, can you confirm that's correct?
>>
>> Assuming this is correct, we need to figure out what group should
be the "sender". A few factors that play into this decision are:
>>
>> * Recognition in Congress (so that it's opened)
>> * Sufficiently international/reflective of the broad group
working on this
>> * Capacity for follow up, should staffers/media reply
>>
>> */Are there other factors we should be considering?/
>> *
>>
>> Here are a few other options (in no particular order), with some
initial thoughts on pros/cons. Please add commentary and feel free to
disagree.
>>
>> 1) Send it from a higher profile international group, like HRW.
*upside: *we'd be most likely to get the attention of the staffers.
*downside*: May not be able to get confirmation from HRW to send it in time.
>>
>> 2) send it from a Best Bits email address. *upside: *reflective
of actual authorship, already has buy-in from group members. *downside*:
minimal recognition in Congress. Does Best Bits have the infrastructure
to manage response or follow up?
>>
>> 3) Send it from a US org with int'l operations, such as EFF or
CDT. *upside*: has recognition in Congress.*downside: *Are EFF/CDT
perceived as int'l enough to represent this coalition? Would also need
to check on their capacity to respond.
>>
>> 4) Send from ACLU: *upside: *they've got the system and name
brand recognition. *downside*: they're very American, and it may be
problematic to have the letter delivered by a group that was not
involved in its drafting. Would also have to see if they have the
capacity to respond
>>
>> 5) Send from the Web Foundation. *upside: *they're international
and well established. *downside*: not sure about their recognition in
Congress. Would need to see if they have the capacity for follow up.
>>
>> I should add that Access is happy to be the "sender", and we have
the dedicated staff/capacity to do follow up. Our recognition in
Congress, however, is minimal, and while we consider ourselves an
international org., I can't judge whether we're perceived as int'l
enough to send the letter on behalf of this coalition.
>>
>> /*What options are missing here?*/
>>
>> I realize people working for many of the above-mentioned
organizations are on these lists, so please feel free to jump in.
>>
>> Another question I've raised a few times here is *who* exactly
we're planning to send the letter to? All members of Congress? Or
relevant committee members in the House of Representatives and the Senate?
>>
>> Looking forward to yuour feedback on this.
>>
>> All the best,
>> Deborah
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:17 AM, michael gurstein
<gurstein at gmail.com <mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4
"fatally impacts consumer’s trust on all American (…) that provide
worldwide services." (word missing--likely "companies"
>>
>>
>>
>> Otherwise great job everyone. Sorry that I wasn't around to
edit at the end… family stuff kept me off the Internet all day… but
whoever did it did a great job…
>>
>>
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*webwewant at googlegroups.com
<mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com> [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com
<mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com>] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm
>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM
>> *To:* Kevin Bankston
>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
<mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>;
governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
webwewant at googlegroups.com <mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil
society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement
>>
>>
>>
>> On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org
<mailto:kbankston at cdt.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> A few typos:
>>
>>
>>
>> Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the
case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is
inconsistent with references to “allegations” above)" I assume we want
to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical,
perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"?
>>
>>
>>
>> Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed"
>>
>>
>>
>> Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to
be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human
rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human
rights violation".
>>
>>
>>
>> Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one
to the UN Human Rights Council.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Policy Officer
>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for
consumers*
>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 <tel:%2B60%203%207726%201599>
>>
>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>>
>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
<mailto:webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Deborah Brown
>> Policy Analyst
>> Access | AccessNow.org <http://AccessNow.org>
>> E. deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
>> @deblebrown
>> PGP 0x5EB4727D
>
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRviOAAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqgcgH/i+i7Ko0KRBzy4OArOY9uabc
RJdP+C0Mp7kdq7TlXNFUay/iCSJVpfrCWQ/bEqkG8/dvodPnhCDjSB9IxOxMEuza
KtTzIEqdm5e51YdBJo1BkiwGRn4M+rLduLGWARGeqoGuUdDqeRNFK/uT6/4p6HTw
sJw5xOSFjvbKd+RfWnj4HVKYWilmLlhhq9HK5L5jLCAeaQCaOxQYb2cUshPpxtEJ
xqkPUsv9n4/Mu95i2bxBwm4N98OyCAasiSAm8SftVJeLNneYrTNFCXgJoVnDlzqT
awY42fMH0jjv3yiz8liO37Gn5eDZMc4QA0/cd422ObXys67P0fN3YkuRf2knhFQ=
=0Yz+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130617/9b0c8d85/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list