[bestbits] Civil society transparency
willi.uebelherr at riseup.net
Fri Jun 5 17:20:56 EDT 2015
we have read many things in this thread. And sometimes, i ask me, where
lives this people?
Dear parminder, you speak about EU and transparency in a direct
relation?. Do you know, what is the EU? Do you know, how it works? Do
you know, how it is inside structured?
In the german language, we have a small sentence. "den Bock zum Gaertner
machen" (make the goat the gardener). Or you can use: To fight against
the fire in a forest with gasoline.
In the text from Luca Belli i found a reference to a book, that Wolfgang
Kleinwaechter have edited 2007. "The Power of Ideas: Internet Governance
in a Global Multi-Stakeholder Environment ". Now i got the pdf-file. And
i see, 8 years before, the discussion about "Internet Governance" was
the same. And i ask me: In all this years of big discussions, many
meetings in 5 star environments, what is the result?
Only the resignation, frustration and the loss of orientation?
many greetings, willi
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Am 05/06/2015 um 07:18 schrieb parminder:
> On Friday 29 May 2015 07:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> Replying just to the IGC list in respect of the suggestion that the
>> IGC could host this McCarthy Committee on civil society funding and
>> transparency, I doubt that there is any consensus that it should do
>> this, and the IGC cannot act in its absence.
>> I for one cannot imagine a scenario in which this would not do much
>> more harm than good. There had already been much negative fallout from
>> JNC members interrogating others on this list and the Best Bits lists
>> by about their funding and demanding they take particular
>> accountability and transparency measures. We could not withstand
>> another such inquisition without a foundation of mutual trust and
>> respect, which frankly will take much time to rebuild, beginning with
>> an adjustment in attitude from the inquisitioners.
> I made a straight forward proposal for a simplest possible, voluntary,
> transparency initiative for the civil society groups involved in the IG
> area. I also pointed out that because of both (1) the even higher stakes
> involved in the multi-stakeholder governance structures, and (2) the
> highly contested (and invested) geo politics of the area, such an
> initiative is especially important in this area. I also pointed that the
> NetMundial statement as well as the UN report on IGF improvements
> carries language which strongly points towards need for such transparency.
> I further clearly proposed that some group(s) that have the confidence
> of everyone in this area can manage the initiative. I, IT for Change or
> JNC have no interest in managing it. I further volunteered to personally
> help raise resources for it, that can be used by whichever entity we
> collectively decide should anchor this project.
> Further, I said that we can discuss different possible approaches to
> such a voluntary transparency initiative - I suggested the EU's
> transparency register as a model, Ian said we could explore alternative
> possibilities ( I request him to elaborate but havent heard back), Becky
> pointed to some resources and templates, which I am happy to go with,
> although they are more complex than a simple 'interests/ objectives /
> funding sources' kind of voluntary disclosure like the cited EU register
> calls for, you yourselves cited a document about which too I expressed
> openness to possibly treat as a basis for our further discussion...
> Meanwhile Luca Belli published this excellent paper on
> ( I greatly encourage everyone to read it ) which also presents a basic
> schema of declarations of interests and funding for actors involved in
> IG space. The leads provided by this paper is one way we can take this
> discussion and the proposed initiative forward.
> However, instead of engaging on any of these lines, you continue to call
> the proposal names (McCarthy-ism) and take the ad hominem line of
> attacking the proposer rather than engage with the proposal.
> (BTW, I do consider it - excuse the expression - rather shameful for
> the co-convenor of a coalition to openly 'admit' that the basic problem
> that is considered to have dogged the coalition - roughly, a sort of
> ongoing conflict between two sides or groups, which I think is political
> - has really been about one side seeking funds related transparency from
> the office bearers of the coalition. Such statements belong to some
> corrupt set ups in a forsaken under-developed place, not in a top global
> coalition of civil society actors. On the other hand, your assertion
> that before such demands can be made, the demand-makers have to learn to
> behave and so on directly invites the analogy of a dictator who refuses
> to hold elections because he claims that pro-democracy protests had gone
> somewhat violent in some areas. We have been hearing such things for
> centuries now. But it is incredulous that a person of your skills and
> social position makes such statements in this era. )
> Meanwhile, I have no expectations or claims from you as a person, but a
> co-convenor of the Bestbits groups I may restate my request that I will
> like to have some kind of official response on my proposal - or an
> alternative transparency proposal for civil society groups - from the
> Bestbits management.
> thanks, and best regards,
More information about the Bestbits