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

Jeremy Malcolm jeremy at ciroap.org
Sat Nov 9 03:42:16 EST 2013 

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|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> 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>:
> 
>> 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> 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> 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/>* or *
>>>> *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/> or *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/>* or **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/>.
>>>> 
>>>> *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/>or
>>>> *www.grants.gov* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s
>>>> website, *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*
>>>> <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.
>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/governance/attachments/20131109/21eb93c4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list