[bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency

[Norbert Bollow]

On Thu, 28 May 2015 18:41:20 -0700
Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:

> Replying just to the IGC list

As a matter of fact, Jeremy's posting was broadcast to many civil
society mailing lists.

> 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.

While I don't think that the words "McCarthy Committee" are a
particularly good characterization of what was suggested, I agree that
IGC would not be a particularly good choice of locus for work on this,
and not only because of the difficulties in IGC with reaching consensus
on much of anything. (These difficulties have existed for a long time,
since well before either BestBits of JNC were founded.)

> 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. 

Given that the initial set of pointed questions were sparked by the
initial Bestbits meeting having been part of a formal "capacity
building" programme funded in part by the US and UK government, and
given that about half of that initial Bestbits meeting was spent on
building a "civil society" position which turned so well aligned with
the interests of the US that the US government then in turn referenced
it officially --while the existence of that "capacity building"
programme had not in any way at the time been disclosed to the
participants of that Bestbits meeting-- I find it quite remarkable when
then it is proposed that rebuilding "a foundation of mutual trust and
respect" should be achieved not by taking accountability and
transparency measures, but instead by means of an "adjustment in
attitude from the inquisitioners".

Effectively this is essentially just another demand for people to shut
up in regard to a particular set of topics. Recently there was a posting
on the IGC list, by an IGC coordinator, which essentially suggested
that demands for democracy in Internet governance should not be brought
up because they can spark conflict. Now Jeremy, one of the founders and
key leaders of Bestbits, essentially says the same about a suggestion
to work towards a standard for *voluntary* disclosures in the area of
accountability and transparency.

So if we were to accept both of this, we should not talk about the need
for democracy, and also not talk about the need for accountability and
transparency within civil society.

Greetings,
Norbert