[bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society...

[parminder]

Dear All,

As some have been shocked by Norbert's email, frankly I too am, well 
almost, shocked to hear about the problem or hesitation so many of us 
here seem to have in applying transparency principles to civil society 
organisations and coalitions in the IG space - especially with regard to 
those who hold positions of 'power' in CS arrangements, as being our 
managers of processes, interlocutors with other groups, representatives 
for UN working groups, MAG, and so on.

However, let me try to separate two lines of discussion here, in the 
hope that IG civil society  willstillbe able to apply transparency and 
accountability principles to itself, that it so much preaches to all 
others, especially the governments.(In principle agreement with 
principles is of little use in absence of the required will to apply 
them in practice.)

Need for transparency, including of our funding relationship is one 
thing, and /*is fact based*/. Judgement of neutrality /*is well a 
judgement*/, and quite another thing. Although people will make such 
judgement based on information available because there is transparency 
in the first place. They would very likely make such a judgement in 
different ways, as we have seen in this thread, and that is fine. But 
such differences do not need to affect a prior agreement that, yes, 
there should be maximum transparency. The two issues should not be 
conflated, and our different judgements on what could be passable basis 
for neutrality should not cloud a discussion on the prior issue whether 
we agree on transparency vis a vis funding relationships (and I will 
add, basic statement of objectives, activities, organisational 
relationships and so on).

I hope we can separate the two issues and the discussion regarding them.

One important issue related to funding transparency is of exceptional 
situations in which the personal security of those involved with certain 
kinds of sensitive CS work may get compromised because of 
'transparency'. Now, this issue is real, but it cannot be used as a 
cover all excuse to not have any transparency at all.

The situation is very similar, almost identical, to that of governments 
claiming that since governments do considerable work whose disclosure 
may compromise national/ public security, demands for right to (public) 
information are misplaced. In many countries, including India, civil 
society groups have successfully called this bluff. In most cases it is 
agreed that while public order/ security exemption may be valid in some 
case, the default is full transparency, and the case of each and every 
national/ public security exception should be specially made and 
generally accepted. Shouldnt the same test apply to civil society 
propositions of 'personal security' exception. Why do we allow ourselves 
to be so soft on ourselves. We may not think so but the world is 
watching and judging us. Even more that other stakeholders. civil 
society's legitimacy is made or lost dynamically with each of its 
actions and inactions.

/*Bottomline: I strongly support Norbert's proposal that all custodians 
of CS processes (and I add all reps to other bodies like working groups, 
MAG etc) should divulge basic information about themselves, which 
includes all funding sources/ relationships, basic organisational 
identity if any, a basic statement of intent, purpose and objectives, 
and summary of *//*activities*//*in the past, present and planned.*/
*/
/**/This is a clear and direct proposal, and I request lets not 
emotionalise it with making judgements or challenging judgements about 
how the products of such transparency would be seen /**/as in terms of 
neutrality or otherwise. /*While of course there is no doubt that 
transparency is being asked for the purpose of allowing people to make 
their judgements,  my simple point is; we need not agree on these 
judgements even as we agree on the need for transparency - and the 
specific ways to operationalize the transparency principle.

parminder


On Sunday 10 November 2013 02:03 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Overall I share Anja's views on this, matter.   We are in these spaces 
> together because of a basic assumption that even if the organisations 
> and individuals who are active in IGF, IRP and Best Bits do not always 
> agree, and have different approaches to their work, we also share some 
> common concerns and interests.
>
> Perhaps, particularly in IGC, the diversity of approaches and beliefs 
> has reached a point where any kind of cohesion, even on a few specific 
> issues, is not achievable.  Demanding 'disclosure' of funding sources 
> is not going to help fix this. In Best Bits we are still managing to 
> do quite a lot of work together, draft statements, and discuss issues 
> constructively.
>
> Transparency of funding for civil society organisations is indeed 
> important, but I feel that raising it here is counter-productive. Most 
> civil society organisations do disclose their funding publicly in 
> their annual reports and financial statements, and these can usually 
> be found on their websites. Why not simply visit those to find out if 
> you are interested in who funds organisations in these spaces? But 
> there are also some who don't disclose all their sources of funding 
> publicly because of constraints in their countries (as has been said 
> in this thread already).  We have to respect that. Not everyone has 
> the same degree of choice in who their funding partners are.
>
> Anyone who wants to look at APC's sources of funding should simply 
> visit our annual report. The list of partners/donors for 2012 is on 
> page 67 of the 2012 report (which covers our 2009-12 strategic plan). 
> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_ProgressReport20092012.pdf
>
> APC itself does not receive any funding from the US Dept of State - 
> but some of our members do -  either directly or through partners. 
> Some of them they work in countries where they really have very little 
> choice as there are so few sources of funds for internet-related human 
> rights work. I think Sala's message about funding opportunities should 
> be seen in that light.
>
> I am not denying that accepting such funding can be problematic. My 
> view is that rather than 'blacklisting' people because of where their 
> funding comes from, I think we should show support to one another - 
> and when possible form partnerships to increase the diversity of 
> funding in the sector, and reduce dependency on single sources, 
> particularly sources that are very directly linked to potentially 
> problematic political agendas. Being overly dependent on one source of 
> funding is never wise, particularly (but not only) when the source is 
> a government. Certainly if some of us were to form partnerships on 
> projects, we would first learn more about one another's donor policies 
> and practices. But IGC, IRP, and Best Bits are discussions spaces and 
> loose coalitions. They don't require this kind of formality.
>
> Like Jeremy I believe we should always assume good faith, and not be 
> too judgemental. Nevertheless, I do think that frank conversations 
> about funding politics are important. But rather than make these 
> spaces (particularly IGC) feel even more unsafe than they do already, 
> we should try to build the kind of trust where we can share (even if 
> offlist) risks and experiences related to the complexities about donor 
> relationships.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
>
> On 09/11/2013 10:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> I am all for transparency, but there is little to no completely clean 
>> money for civil society, and managing that fact is something we all 
>> handle in different ways. I would always assume good faith and not 
>> get too judgmental about each others' funding sources without knowing 
>> how any conflicts of interest are managed.
>>
>> Speaking personally I am prepared to disclose that there are no 
>> donors currently supporting my work on IG, but it is of course 
>> supported by Consumers International as my employer. The other 
>> projects that I work on are supported by Open Society Foundations, 
>> IDRC and a German government agency.
>>
>> This shouldn't be taken to set a precedent for anyone else to detail 
>> how they are funded, because there may be any number of constraints 
>> that would make them feel unsafe or uneasy about disclosing that on a 
>> public list.
>>
>> (Replying from my phone.)
>>
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
>> Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek
>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org <http://e164.org>|awk 
>> -F! '{print $3}'
>>
>> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly 
>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For 
>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9 Nov 2013, at 4:11 pm, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch 
>> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am honestly surprised to see my request for transparency in regard to
>>> what is in the present situation clearly a key aspect described, by a
>>> member of the BestBits steering committee, as "lining people up against
>>> a wall and shooting them".
>>>
>>> Is the plural "people" in that sentence an indication that a plurality
>>> of members of the BestBits steering committee have such a funding
>>> relationship to a project that is funded entirely or in part by the US
>>> government?
>>>
>>> I apologize for asking this so bluntly, but I have previously tried
>>> to ask in a very non-confrontational way. The first time I asked a
>>> related question was well before the BestBits meeting in Bali. That
>>> led to an off-list discussion of Jeremy, Andrew and myself in which
>>> I thought it had been agreed to discuss the issue of transparency in
>>> Bali.
>>>
>>> However, when I brought the issue up during the BestBits meeting in
>>> Bali, in an as non-confrontational way as possible, Andrew deflected
>>> the attempts to raise the issue, preventing it from being discussed.
>>>
>>> Now with that new "Public Notice" addressing, together with two other
>>> countries, the country that will apparently be the host country of next
>>> year's IGF, I feel a need to ask these questions bluntly.
>>>
>>> There is a point when one has to speak out, with clear words, if one
>>> does not want to be an accomplice through silence.
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>>
>>> Am Sat, 9 Nov 2013 12:36:25 +0530
>>> schrieb Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in 
>>> <mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in>>:
>>>
>>>> Norbert,
>>>>
>>>> As you are aware, one of the primary goals of Best Bits is to bridge
>>>> the divide between civil society in the Global South and the Global
>>>> North.
>>>>
>>>> With that in mind, I find the tenor of your message below quite
>>>> unacceptable. Lining people up against a wall and shooting them, as
>>>> you seem to aim to do, completely disregards the extreme complexity
>>>> of funding decisions many activists, especially in the Global South,
>>>> have to take all the time and the tremendous care with which they
>>>> face these difficult questions. Whatever way these decisions go,
>>>> those who make them so carefully are quite aware of the fact that
>>>> nobody is exempt from the taint of money. In fact, the first thing
>>>> that comes to my mind when I hear someone self-funded a trip to an
>>>> international meeting (which some seem to see as the most "untainted"
>>>> position) is: "how the hell are they able to do that?!?!?". The
>>>> salaries I am familiar with in the not-for-profit sector don't quite
>>>> allow for this option. It's a good reminder that the range of
>>>> decisions that are within the reach of each of us are shaped quite
>>>> intimately by our respective privilege: our gender, our class, the
>>>> colour of our skin, our geographical location. Depending on where we
>>>> are situated in this matrix of privilege, the cost-benefit analysis
>>>> of accepting any particular kind of funding will necessarily be quite
>>>> different.
>>>>
>>>> While I have engaged in many conversations about the complexities of
>>>> funding with people in this community (including in the steering
>>>> committee) and elsewhere, I find these conversations only valuable if
>>>> they take this matrix of privilege into account. In such situations,
>>>> everyone will be as reflective about their own decisions and
>>>> privilege as about others'. As a consequence, these conversations are
>>>> not framed around judgement, but around compassion and support to
>>>> question ourselves and push ourselves just a little bit harder, equip
>>>> ourselves to carry just a little bit more of those costs. If I've
>>>> ever managed to do anything politically meaningful in my life, it is
>>>> only because I have for long been blessed with the company of friends
>>>> who provided just that environment.
>>>>
>>>> And it is only in such a politically mature environment that I am
>>>> prepared to have this conversation - or that I think Best Bits should
>>>> take it forward for that matter, at least if we are to have this
>>>> conversation in line with the objectives of Best Bits.
>>>>
>>>> I will be happy to engage further once the terms of the debate have
>>>> been altered quite radically along these lines.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and best regards,
>>>> Anja
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9 November 2013 09:54, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch 
>>>> <mailto:nb at bollow.ch>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Disclosure request to the members of the BestBits Steering
>>>>> Committee, to the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and
>>>>> to the coordinators of the IGC
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I view the kind of thing that is described in Sala's posting below,
>>>>> when funded by a government with strong geostrategic interests, as
>>>>> potentially highly problematic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Capacity building always and necessarily includes, to some extent at
>>>>> least, shaping and directing that capacity.
>>>>>
>>>>> People whose activities are partly funded through such programmes
>>>>> cannot reasonably be expected to be objective in regard to matters
>>>>> that could be seen as threatening the funder's geostrategic
>>>>> interests.
>>>>>
>>>>> For this reason such funding relationships need to be proactively
>>>>> disclosed. The situation can then be addressed by means of steps
>>>>> such as recusal from discussions that relate to matters that have a
>>>>> clear relevance to the funder's geostrategic interests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically, I hereby request the members of the BestBits steering
>>>>> committee, the members of the IRP Steering Committee, and the
>>>>> coordinators of the IGC to disclose any direct or indirect financial
>>>>> relationship to any "capacity building" or similar kind of project
>>>>> where a US government agency is among the funders.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For my part, I can say that I don't have any such funding
>>>>> relationship, I've never had any such funding relationships, and I
>>>>> have no intention of entering into any such funding relationships
>>>>> in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> Norbert
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sala <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 
>>>>> <mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For those in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey who are seeking to
>>>>>> strengthen civil society there, there is some funding available
>>>>>> through the US State Department, see below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Request for
>>>>>> Proposals: Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe and
>>>>>> Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> November 8, 2013
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Department of State
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Public Notice*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Request for
>>>>>> Proposals: *Democracy, Human Rights, and Rule of Law in Europe
>>>>>> and Eurasia (Azerbaijan, Moldova and Turkey)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *SUMMARY*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) announces a
>>>>>> Request for Proposals from organizations interested in submitting
>>>>>> proposals for projects that promote democracy, human rights, and
>>>>>> rule of law in Europe and Eurasia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *PLEASE NOTE**: DRL strongly urges applicants to access *
>>>>>> *www.grantsolutions.gov <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>* 
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
>>>>>> *www.grants.gov <http://www.grants.gov>* 
>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/>* as soon as possible in
>>>>>> order to obtain a username and password to submit your
>>>>>> application. For more information, please see DRL's Proposal
>>>>>> Submission Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012,
>>>>>> available at * *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>*.
>>>>>> *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *REQUESTED PROPOSAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DRL invites organizations to submit proposals outlining program
>>>>>> concepts and capacity to manage projects targeting one of the
>>>>>> following issues:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Moldova*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Minority Empowerment in Moldova (approximately $300,000
>>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the capacity of
>>>>>> minorities in Moldova to advocate for and improve their social,
>>>>>> economic and political conditions. This program should focus on
>>>>>> one of three areas: Civic Engagement, Social Inclusion or
>>>>>> Education. Proposals should focus on more than one minority group
>>>>>> and may include the Roma, Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Gagauz, Jewish or
>>>>>> other communities. Proposals should clearly indicate which of the
>>>>>> three categories they will address. DRL also encourages proposals
>>>>>> which address more than one of the categories.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Civic Engagement* -- Civic Engagement proposals should focus on
>>>>>> developing minority civil society capacity to engage at the local
>>>>>> and national level to promote equal rights and tolerance.
>>>>>> Activities could include, but are not limited to: training
>>>>>> minority civic leaders and NGOs to effectively engage in
>>>>>> political advocacy and to participate in the decision-making
>>>>>> process; providing opportunities for participants to network with
>>>>>> other minority leaders both within Moldova and through regional
>>>>>> civil society networks; and targeting training for civic leaders
>>>>>> and NGOs on advocacy skills, legal rights and enforcement,
>>>>>> organizational management, or communication skills.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Social Inclusion* -- Social Inclusion proposals should focus on
>>>>>> minority acceptance and improving inter-ethnic relations in
>>>>>> Moldova. The proposal should promote inter-ethnic communication,
>>>>>> tolerance, and understanding through components such as
>>>>>> inter-ethnic youth activities or cross-cultural education. The
>>>>>> program could raise awareness and knowledge of minority cultures
>>>>>> and values. Proposals should involve minority interaction with
>>>>>> the majority group in joint activities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Education* -- Education proposals should focus on improving
>>>>>> educational outcomes for minorities in Moldova either through
>>>>>> activities such as mentorships, after-school programs, summer
>>>>>> camps, internship opportunities, or language training. The
>>>>>> program should focus on minorities who are disadvantaged in terms
>>>>>> of educational opportunities and outcomes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Turkey*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Connecting Civil Society, Citizens and Government (approximately
>>>>>> $500,000 available):* DRL's objective is to build the voice of
>>>>>> civil society in ongoing debates about public policy and increase
>>>>>> citizens' awareness that they should be informed about and
>>>>>> participate in the political process. The program should support
>>>>>> civil society in advocating for stable democratic institutions,
>>>>>> the rule of law, and protection of fundamental freedoms; and
>>>>>> educate citizens on their right to participate in the political
>>>>>> process. The program should build coalitions among diverse civil
>>>>>> society groups and NGOs to bring together disparate voices,
>>>>>> including traditionally marginalized groups, to advocate for
>>>>>> respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability.
>>>>>> Activities should emphasize the value of civil society engagement
>>>>>> in public policy debates and encourage these coalitions to
>>>>>> educate their constituents and the general populace on
>>>>>> fundamental freedoms, and their role in both holding their
>>>>>> government accountable and protecting their rights and freedoms.
>>>>>> Proposals should take advantage of traditional and new methods of
>>>>>> outreach to help citizens share their views and build citizens
>>>>>> expectations for political participation. Successful proposals
>>>>>> will also demonstrate a strong knowledge of the political
>>>>>> environment for civil society in Turkey and an established
>>>>>> ability to work with diverse civil society groups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Azerbaijan*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Civil Society Empowerment in Azerbaijan (approximately $500,000
>>>>>> available):* DRL's objective is to strengthen the role of civil
>>>>>> society in enhancing government accountability and respect for
>>>>>> fundamental freedoms and rule of law in Azerbaijan. The program
>>>>>> will encourage more collaboration among civil society efforts to
>>>>>> promote an inclusive, accountable, just and participatory
>>>>>> democratic system of government. The program should also support
>>>>>> the efforts of civil society in human rights and anti-corruption
>>>>>> advocacy, while assisting civil society leaders and NGOs in
>>>>>> increased public outreach. Proposals should identify best
>>>>>> practices in efforts to promote democratic reforms and rule of
>>>>>> law, and assess the needs of independent democracy activists and
>>>>>> NGOs. Program activities could include, but are not limited to:
>>>>>> technical assistance to build the capacity of Azeri democracy and
>>>>>> human rights activists and NGOs in key communities to engage in
>>>>>> effective public outreach and advocacy; support for activities to
>>>>>> encourage results-oriented, constructive debate and advocacy by
>>>>>> citizens and civil society organizations; linking NGOs and
>>>>>> activists advocating for justice, accountability and/or
>>>>>> fundamental freedoms together within and among Azerbaijan's
>>>>>> regions to enhance their effectiveness. Small-to-medium sized
>>>>>> grants to independent NGOs to conduct public outreach and
>>>>>> grassroots organizing/advocacy to promote justice, accountability
>>>>>> and/or fundamental freedoms would be an essential component of a
>>>>>> successful proposal. Successful proposals will also demonstrate a
>>>>>> strong knowledge of the environment for civil society in
>>>>>> Azerbaijan and an established ability to work with regional
>>>>>> independent civil society.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *DEADLINE AND TECHNICAL ELIGIBILITY*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please refer directly to DRL's posted Proposal Submission
>>>>>> Instructions (PSI), updated in November 2012, available at
>>>>>> *http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm*<
>>>>> http://www.state.gov/j/drl/p/c12302.htm>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Faxed, couriered, or emailed documents will not be accepted at any
>>>>>> time. Applicants must follow all formatting instructions in this
>>>>>> document and the Proposal Submission Instructions (PSI).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To ensure all applications receive a balanced evaluation, the DRL
>>>>>> Review Committee will review the first page of the requested
>>>>>> section up to the page limit and no further. DRL encourages
>>>>>> organizations to use the given space effectively.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An organization may submit *no more than three [3] proposals (one
>>>>>> per country/theme).* Proposals that combine target countries
>>>>>> and/or themes will be deemed technically ineligible. *Proposals
>>>>>> that request less than the award floor ($300,000) or more than
>>>>>> the award ceiling ($500,000) may be deemed technically
>>>>>> ineligible.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Technically eligible submissions are those which: 1) arrive
>>>>>> electronically via *www.grantsolutions.gov 
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov 
>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> by *Wednesday, December 18, 2013 *before
>>>>>> 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST); 2) heed all instructions
>>>>>> contained in the solicitation document and Proposal Submission
>>>>>> Instructions (PSI), including length and completeness of
>>>>>> submission; and 3) do not violate any of the guidelines stated in
>>>>>> the solicitation and this document.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *It is the responsibility of all applicants to ensure that
>>>>>> proposals have been received by **www.grantsolutions.gov 
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov 
>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov>*
>>>>>> <http://www.grants.gov/> *in their entirety. DRL bears no
>>>>>> responsibility for data errors resulting from transmission or
>>>>>> conversion processes.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once the Request for Proposals deadline has passed U.S.
>>>>>> Department of State staff in Washington and overseas may not
>>>>>> discuss competing proposals with applicants until the review
>>>>>> process has been completed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *NOTE:* In order to process final awards, approved applicants will
>>>>>> need to register with *www.grantsolutions.gov 
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov>*
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Programs that leverage resources from funds internal to the
>>>>>> organization or other sources, such as public-private
>>>>>> partnerships, will be highly considered. Projects that have a
>>>>>> strong academic, research, conference, or dialogue focus will not
>>>>>> be deemed competitive. DRL strongly discourages health,
>>>>>> technology, or science- related projects unless they have an
>>>>>> explicit component related to the requested program objectives
>>>>>> listed above. Projects that focus on commercial law or economic
>>>>>> development will be rated as non-competitive. Cost sharing is
>>>>>> strongly encouraged, and cost sharing contributions should be
>>>>>> outlined in the proposal budget and budget narrative.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DRL will not consider proposals that reflect any type of support,
>>>>>> for any member, affiliate, or representative of a designated
>>>>>> terrorist organization, whether or not elected members of
>>>>>> government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The information in this solicitation is binding and may not be
>>>>>> modified by any Bureau representative. Explanatory information
>>>>>> provided by the Bureau that contradicts this language will not be
>>>>>> binding. Issuance of the solicitation does not constitute an award
>>>>>> commitment on the part of the Government. The Bureau reserves the
>>>>>> right to reduce, revise, or increase proposal budgets in
>>>>>> accordance with the needs of the program evaluation requirements.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This request for proposals will appear on
>>>>>> *www.grantosolutions.gov 
>>>>>> <http://www.grantosolutions.gov>*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
>>>>>> *www.grants.gov <http://www.grants.gov>* 
>>>>>> <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL's
>>>>>> website, *www.state.gov/j/drl* <http://www.state.gov/j/drl*> 
>>>>>> <http://www.state.gov/j/drl>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *FOR FURTHER INFORMATION*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should you have any questions regarding the solicitation, please
>>>>>> feel free to contact Erin Spitzer at *SpitzerEM at State.gov 
>>>>>> <mailto:SpitzerEM at State.gov>*
>>>>>> <SpitzerEM at State.gov <mailto:SpitzerEM at State.gov>>. Once the 
>>>>>> deadline has passed, State
>>>>>> Department officials and staff - both in the Bureau and at
>>>>>> embassies overseas - may not discuss this competition with
>>>>>> applicants until the entire proposal review process is completed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stay connected with the State Department:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>.
>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org 
>>> <mailto:IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysenanriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131110/f486bc27/attachment.htm>