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

Sat Nov 9 08:04:43 EST 2013

Andrew - I hope your partner is well and I wish your partner warm and
positive energy and good health

On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Andrew Puddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org>wrote:

> I'm joining this thread from hospital where my partner has just had a
> major operation - so this will be my only contribution.
>
> I did not deflect any conversation in Bali. I made it clear that I was
> funded by the Ford Foundation but that I have no interest in others funding
> sources. Anyone could taken the issue further - including you Norbert - but
> no one did.
>
> I'm prepared to operate on the basis of good faith in others intentions
> recognising that funding is very limited and very few organisations are
> willing to support civil society - DRL being one if the most generous,
>
> Personally I'm not interested in imposing a requirement on people
> contingent on their funding.
>
> I made the point in Bali that a more constructive approach would be to try
> and raise money to fund BB participation costs obviating these concerns.
> Maybe you'd like to help me with this Norbet?
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 9 Nov 2013, at 08:12, "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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131110/3e28fb0e/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