[bestbits] Input needed on options for delivery of international civil society letter to Congress on NSA
Kevin Bankston
kbankston at cdt.org
Mon Jun 17 08:05:40 EDT 2013
As as Best Bits participant, I'd be happy to be the sender and/or a contact person and play traffic cop here from DC. CDT is well known in Congress and folks know we work internationally as well.
____________________________________
Kevin S. Bankston
Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director
Center for Democracy & Technology
1634 I St NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
202.407.8834 direct
202.637.0968 fax
kbankston at cdt.org
Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech
On Jun 17, 2013, at 12:53 AM, Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org> wrote:
> 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>
>
> > 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-----
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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/20130617/95e6b419/attachment.htm>
More information about the Bestbits
mailing list