[bestbits] BestBits statement

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Niels ten Oever <lists at digitaldissidents.org> wrote:

> Signed PGP part
> We will support this. Even though I would prefer to make point 6 point
> 1. Is there opposition against that?

Yes there was as Access wanted it at the end - IMHO either start or end are strong places for it.

> Could we also make this a Best Bits statement instead of a sign-on
> statement? (Sorry for now being more acquainted with the process.)

I don't think so - we had a show of hands at the meeting in support of what is now paragraph 1 and this will be reflected in the record of the meeting, but the other paragraphs are somewhat novel and the opt-in sign-on is a more appropriate procedure for those.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Global Policy Analyst
Electronic Frontier Foundation
https://eff.org
jmalcolm at eff.org

Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161

:: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/f3e8040b/attachment.sig>