[bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA
Deborah Brown
deborah at accessnow.org
Mon Jun 17 00:53:34 EDT 2013
Hi all,
I just got confirmation from the ACLU that they can send out our letter
tomorrow, and can input any email address/name as the sender. Though it
may be obvious, they advised, "It's best for it to come from a real person
since occassionally staff write back with questions."
I like Nnenna's and Gene's suggestions that a Best Bits "member" with
recognition in Congress send it on behalf of the coalition, and that a few
groups be listed as available for follow up by phone/email.
I can volunteer my colleague Katherine Maher, who is DC-based, as one of
the contacts for follow up. Are there any volunteers to be the "sender"?
If everyone's on board with this approach and we still want to get this out
on Monday, we need to:
- Finalize the text of the email to Congress
- Identify a sender
- Identify groups available for follow up
Anything else I'm missing?
It's getting late in NY, but I'm happy to pick this up in the morning.
Best regards,
Deborah
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 4:43 PM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
> -----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> <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
> > Date:
> > To: Gene Kimmelman <genekimmelman at gmail.com> <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
> > Cc: Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org> <deborah at accessnow.org>,michael
> gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> <gurstein at gmail.com>,Jeremy Malcolm
> <jeremy at ciroap.org> <jeremy at ciroap.org>,Kevin Bankston <kbankston at cdt.org><kbankston at cdt.org>
> ,"<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>"
> <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> <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> <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> <webwewant at googlegroups.com> [
> mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com <webwewant at googlegroups.com>
> <mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com> <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>
> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net><bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>>
> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> <mailto:irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org><irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>;
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org><governance at lists.igcaucus.org>;
> webwewant at googlegroups.com <mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com><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> <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/><http://www.consumersinternational.org/>|
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational><http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
> >>
> >> Read our email confidentiality notice
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality><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><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><http://AccessNow.org>
> >> E. deborah at accessnow.org <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org><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-----
>
>
--
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130617/1e305b01/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list