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

[Norbert Bollow]

Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

> I find this message to be very deeply disturbing for two reasons.
> 
> The first is the specific mention “ a US government agency is among
> the funders”,.

Well the first several times that I brought up the issue of the
importance of funding transparency in the context of how the BestBits
process is steered, I was speaking more generally.

Because I asked about how Andrew's work is funded, I've been sent (by
one of the authors) a copy of a research paper on "capacity building"
funding where the initial BestBits meeting (the one prior to the Baku
IGF) is described as having been part of a capacity building project
funded in part by the US government. Even though I was there, I am not
able to judge the accuracy of that description. All I know is that
1) nothing of the sort was disclosed to the participants,
2) the content and outcome of that meeting turned out to be remarkably
   well-aligned with the geostrategic interests of the US government,
3) since then, BestBits has been institutionalized to some degree with
   a steering committee, where with the exception of Jeremy, the
   steering committee members haven't been responding to the requests
   for funding transparency in any way that could possibly inspire me
   with trust.

At some point, when there is specific reason for being concerned but 
clearly strong reluctance to publicly disclose the relevant
information, it becomes appropriate to bluntly ask specific, pointed    
questions.

This is not about a value judgment  it is not about some kinds of
funding for civil society work being less ok than others. I hereby
promise to everyone that anyone who discloses receiving some of their
funding from US government sources, or other government sources, or
industry sources, will not because of that in any way lose my respect.

But I definitely think that there is something that needs to be
addressed as a potential problem when --at a time when a significant
part of what is going on in Internet governance is about how much
surveillance power and other power is going to shift away from the US
government-- that same government is --as Sala's posting shows--
seeking to have a central role in civil society "capacity building" at
least in some countries.

> The second is the assumption that I am hearing in this message that
> the recipient of such funding is helpless to maintain their
> objectivity. (The fact that I hear this doesn't necessarily mean that
> you intended it)

My relevant assumption or working hypothesis is:

  Human nature is such that when some someone's actual or potential
  funding may depend on not understanding something, that in many
  situations makes it very hard for the person to understand.

I do not think that people are necessarily helpless in regard to this
risk of partial loss of objectivity.

Specifically in the civil society context, I believe that it helps to
some extent already to have a strong policy of transparency in regard to
funding sources.

In regard to the important issue about the objectivity of the outcomes
of group processes, I would suggest that key steps are to

1) ensure high diversity of funding sources among the participants in
   the group,

2) to use deliberative processes that are designed to make the key
   assumptions explicit and subject of conscious reflection, and

3) to have a culture in the coordinating group (or steering committee or
   whatever it's called) that involves members of that group (which has
   particular influence on the agenda and outcomes) recusing themselves
   from decisions that could reasonably be seen as being related to
   particular interests of a funding source.

Furthermore, specifically in regard to risks related to funding of
civil society "capacity building" by actors with strong particular
interests, I think it is important to have good awareness of these two
potential scenarios that would IMO entail a collapse of the overall
trustworthiness of civil society when seen as a whole:

a) Agenda setting processes being captured (in actual reality or even
just in plausible perception) so that those topics where the outcome
would be contrary to the funder's interests are not put on the agenda
in such a way that an effective outcome results.

b) Discriminatory capacity building, where e.g. getting travel funding
is correlated to how well someone's positions are aligned to not
endangering the funder's particular interests. Or where people are told
that they can get travel funding provided they do not "attack" a
particular person.

Greetings,
Norbert

-------------- 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