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

[Lee W McKnight]

My 2 cents: no offense Norbert, but this exercise is bordering on silly.

An unnamed (specifically) German government agency is fine; whereas USG programs aimed to support civil society are bad? (and sorry to pick on your example Jeremy, but since you offered ; )

My disclosure: on occasion I receive funding from the US National Science Foundation.  But I suppose that makes me also suspect because the USG is powerful; whereas Germany isn't?

Please find anyone in Greece, or for that matter France or Switzerland, who will agree with that view of Germany and German government agencies.

I suggest starting this discussion all over again: suggesting that some process be established for Best Bits folks fuller disclosure of interests and conflicts of interests is a normal step in a process of institutionalization of informal processes.

But whatever those processes are, they should be thought through carefully and not start off as pre-judged based on one persons particular world view. My 2 cents, obviously biased by taking $ from USG...science agency ; )

Lee
________________________________
From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] on behalf of Jeremy Malcolm [jeremy at ciroap.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2013 3:42 AM
To: Norbert Bollow
Cc: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; Irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society...

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<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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>* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or *
*www.grants.gov<http://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>*
<http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> or *www.grants.gov<http://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>*
<http://www.grantsolutions.gov/>* or **www.grants.gov<http://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>*
<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>*<http://www.grantosolutions.gov/>or
*www.grants.gov<http://www.grants.gov>* <http://www.grantsolutions.gov/> and DRL’s
website, *www.state.gov/j/drl*<http://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<mailto:SpitzerEM at State.gov>*
<SpitzerEM at State.gov<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/da7d3245/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