[IRPCoalition] [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society...
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Sat Nov 9 20:43:10 EST 2013
I am in complete agreement with Anriette. It is counter productive.
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Overall I share Anja's views on this, matter. We are in these spaces
> together because of a basic assumption that even if the organisations and
> individuals who are active in IGF, IRP and Best Bits do not always agree,
> and have different approaches to their work, we also share some common
> concerns and interests.
>
> Perhaps, particularly in IGC, the diversity of approaches and beliefs has
> reached a point where any kind of cohesion, even on a few specific issues,
> is not achievable. Demanding 'disclosure' of funding sources is not going
> to help fix this. In Best Bits we are still managing to do quite a lot of
> work together, draft statements, and discuss issues constructively.
>
> Transparency of funding for civil society organisations is indeed
> important, but I feel that raising it here is counter-productive. Most
> civil society organisations do disclose their funding publicly in their
> annual reports and financial statements, and these can usually be found on
> their websites. Why not simply visit those to find out if you are
> interested in who funds organisations in these spaces? But there are also
> some who don't disclose all their sources of funding publicly because of
> constraints in their countries (as has been said in this thread already).
> We have to respect that. Not everyone has the same degree of choice in who
> their funding partners are.
>
> Anyone who wants to look at APC's sources of funding should simply visit
> our annual report. The list of partners/donors for 2012 is on page 67 of
> the 2012 report (which covers our 2009-12 strategic plan).
> http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APC_ProgressReport20092012.pdf
>
> APC itself does not receive any funding from the US Dept of State - but
> some of our members do - either directly or through partners. Some of them
> they work in countries where they really have very little choice as there
> are so few sources of funds for internet-related human rights work. I think
> Sala's message about funding opportunities should be seen in that light.
>
> I am not denying that accepting such funding can be problematic. My view
> is that rather than 'blacklisting' people because of where their funding
> comes from, I think we should show support to one another - and when
> possible form partnerships to increase the diversity of funding in the
> sector, and reduce dependency on single sources, particularly sources that
> are very directly linked to potentially problematic political agendas.
> Being overly dependent on one source of funding is never wise, particularly
> (but not only) when the source is a government. Certainly if some of us
> were to form partnerships on projects, we would first learn more about one
> another's donor policies and practices. But IGC, IRP, and Best Bits are
> discussions spaces and loose coalitions. They don't require this kind of
> formality.
>
> Like Jeremy I believe we should always assume good faith, and not be too
> judgemental. Nevertheless, I do think that frank conversations about
> funding politics are important. But rather than make these spaces
> (particularly IGC) feel even more unsafe than they do already, we should
> try to build the kind of trust where we can share (even if offlist) risks
> and experiences related to the complexities about donor relationships.
>
> Anriette
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 09/11/2013 10:42, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing listIRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.orghttp://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------
> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
> executive director, association for progressive communicationswww.apc.org
> po box 29755, melville 2109
> south africa
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131110/8ada397d/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