[bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency

Andrew Puddephatt andrew at gp-digital.org
Mon Jun 1 13:38:23 EDT 2015

On the question of funding of the BB meeting in Baku, the only specific
funding earmarked for this meeting was a grant from Google which was
distributed to participants from the global south. Our participation as GPA
was supported by the Ford Foundation as has been our subsequent BB activity.

My last post on the subject

*Andrew Puddephatt*
Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT
T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt

On 1 June 2015 at 17:36, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> On 01/06/2015, at 3:29 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> > The Azerbaijan meeting [...] piggybacked on the 7th Internet
> > Governance Forum (IGF) in Baku, Azerbaijan 6-9 November 2012. Being
> > that the IGF is a UN-led, multi-stakeholder annual meeting,
> > established to discuss public policy issues related to the
> > Internet, the IFHR program saw it as an opportunity to convene
> > with many Internet governance and Internet rights NGOs at once.
> > They did so a few days before the start of the IGF, in a large
> > gathering called Best Bits.(*)
> > ...
> > If in spite of all of the above, you still believe that your claim is
> > defensible that "there was and is never any such capacity building
> > program behind Best Bits", please arrange for disclosure of the true
> > facts about the role and activities of the IFHR program in relation to
> > Bestbits, which would in that case have been misunderstood by the
> > researchers, and explain how that misunderstanding would have come
> > about.
> I don't know anything about that program, since it is not my programme,
> and neither was it ever discussed or considered by the Best Bits steering
> committee.  The organisation that I was working for at the time had its own
> programme, with its own funders, that intersected with the Best Bits
> meeting to some extent.  So did many other participants, including Global
> Partners of course.  If any of them wanted to report *their participation
> in* the Best Bits meeting to their funders as an outcome or their
> programme, that's their business.  That is quite different from saying that
> Best Bits is part of any particular participant organisation's programme,
> or is associated with any of any of that organisation's funders.
> PS. I'm not going to debate this on-list with you any further.
> --
> 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 ::
> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt
> PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220
> OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD
> Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide:
> https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150601/d66a041d/attachment.htm>

More information about the Bestbits mailing list