[bestbits] Fwd: Re: Funding info for CfA

Mon Jul 17 00:46:54 EDT 2017

On Sunday 16 July 2017 07:08 PM, James Gannon wrote:
> Well they are not really.
> They are a single subject lobbying/PR firm.

That is completely untrue. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_Accountability for the range
of work they have done. And then is the Washington Post and Wall Street
Journal also lobbying firms??

But you have evidently chosen to discredit the messenger to not address
the message.

The real tragedy lies somewhere else: This one is supposed to be a civil
society group. I distinctly remember that the decision was taken early
on that this is a civil society only group -- that too inclined more
towards responsible, rather better organised civil society. But what we
have here is reps of big business tear apart credible information on
mis-doings of digital big business, when civil society actors want to
share some information, and hope for a public interest discussion on it.
And there is not much civil society voice coming out on the issue -
certainly not enough. Big business actually is able to out shout civil
society, on a civil society list. This is the bane of civil society
engage with Internet/ digital policy issues .

But then civil society leaders have largely brought it on themselves. It
is time we revisit the state of Internet/ digital civil society. This
specially when not only political and civil rights issues (where
sometimes genuine sometimes fake alliances with big businesses were at
times possible, and even prudent) but very strong social and economic
rights issues have come to fore in this area, where big corporate in the
key "other". It is tragic that civil society does its work in the name
of the world's people but is not ready to do what is needed to advocate
and fight for the true interests of the vast majority of them, which are
disadvantaged in various ways.

parminder

>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 16 Jul 2017, at 14:14, Michael Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com
> <mailto:mike.oghia at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Parminder,
>>
>> Thanks for sharing this. I agree that it's odd they don't since they
>> are an organization advocating for accountability – it is
>> counterintuitive at best. Either way, thanks for investigating. 
>>
>> Best,
>> -Michael
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 3:04 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     This is my recent exchange with the head of Campaign for
>>     Accountability. I tell him clearly that their policy of non
>>     disclosure of their donors is not at all fine. They do not
>>     explain why they do not disclose their funders.. parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>     -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>     Subject: 	Re: Funding info for CfA
>>     Date: 	Sat, 15 Jul 2017 18:51:33 +0530
>>     From: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>     To: 	Daniel Stevens <dstevens at campaignforaccountability.org>
>>     <mailto:dstevens at campaignforaccountability.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>     Thanks Dan for your prompt response. It is much appreciated.
>>
>>     While I still think it is useful to divulge donors, especially
>>     for this kind of work, I do greatly value your work. Best wishes
>>     for it. Meanwhile I will like to have your permission to share
>>     the below email from you on the public elist where I am having
>>     this discussion. parminder
>>
>>
>>     On Saturday 15 July 2017 06:10 PM, Daniel Stevens wrote:
>>>
>>>     Good Morning,
>>>
>>>
>>>     Thanks for contacting us about our work.  CfA does not disclose
>>>     its donors.  We think our work speaks for itself.  Over the past
>>>     18 months, the Google Transparency Project has documented more
>>>     than 425 White House meetings by Google lobbyists, 250 revolving
>>>     door hires between Google and government and more than 325
>>>     academic papers paid for by the company to help advance its
>>>     policy interests. All of the underlying data is published on the
>>>     site, along with more than 40,000 pages of Google emails with US
>>>     government officials.  The data in the report has also been
>>>     subject to analysis by The Wall Street Journal, which cited the
>>>     data in its own investigative article today.
>>>
>>>
>>>     Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>     Dan
>>>
>>>
>>>     ---
>>>     Daniel Stevens
>>>     Executive Director
>>>     Campaign for Accountability
>>>     202.780.5750 (o)
>>>     http://campaignforaccountability.org/
>>>     <http://campaignforaccountability.org/>
>>>     @Accountable_Org
>>>
>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>     *From:* parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>     <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>>     *Sent:* Saturday, July 15, 2017 2:52:10 AM
>>>     *To:* Daniel Stevens
>>>     *Subject:* Funding info for CfA
>>>      
>>>
>>>     Dear Madam/ Sir
>>>
>>>     I think you do great work. But it looks more than a tad odd that
>>>     an organisation that seeks, and so actively too, accountability
>>>     in public life itself does not publish its annual report and
>>>     funding sources on its website. I am sure it must just have been
>>>     an oversight, but will you be able to share your annual funding
>>>     statement with me. Thanks.
>>>
>>>     Let me tell you the background of this request. I posted on an
>>>     Internet governance e-list the coverage of your story on how
>>>     Google funds so many academic reports in Internet policy space.
>>>     A useful discussion ensued. But someone pointed out that CfA
>>>     itself does not publicly disclose its funding sources. I agreed
>>>     it was odd that it doesnt.
>>>
>>>     If you indeed are able to share your funding statement I will
>>>     inform all the skeptics of this fact. I myself work with an NGO
>>>     and some global civil society networks, and publishing our
>>>     funding sources is considered a simple necessity to have any
>>>     credibility in this area.
>>>
>>>     Thanks, for your great work, and look forward to an early response.
>>>
>>>     Best regards
>>>
>>>     parminder
>>>
>>>     IT for Change (www.ITforChange.net <http://www.ITforChange.net>)
>>>
>>
>>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     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
>>     <http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20170717/51832fe9/attachment.htm>