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

[Mawaki Chango]

All,

This is one of those threads I start reading and then shake my head
wondering whether I should keep on reading. I stopped at some point but
wanted to offer some basic thoughts based on what I have read, and not
replying to anyone specifically.

#1 The initial request was made to BB and IRP steering committee members as
well as IGC co-coordinators, not every single member of CS.

#2 As a matter of principle, it is okay, in my humble opinion, for CS
groups to want to adopt a policy/procedure for funding disclosure or for
addressing conflict of interest issues, particularly for members in
leadership position.

#3 That procedure does not have to be carried out publicly on a discussion
list such as these ones --for, among other things, the safety reasons and
possible risks that have already been mentioned. A structure may be put in
place (NomCom?) to receive such statements.

#4 The said policy would not just apply to people affiliated to an
organization, be it CS or otherwise (so that the public would just need to
go check out their report and financial statement from their website.)
Individuals, too, may be concerned. For instance personally, I am not
currently affiliated to any CS org per se. Suppose overnight I start
showing up at all internet policy meetings around the globe, becoming
increasingly vocal to a point where I find myself thrown into some
leadership role (yes, sometimes that happens because people are ubiquitous
and vocal.) I think it's normal someone would ask: Who's backing Mawaki for
him to be able to attend all these meetings and become so visible? Is there
some agenda behind?

#5 It would certainly be wrong if this were to be done in the spirit of
_judging_ or even being _suspicious_ of anyone subject to the procedure.
And on that note, I must admit that was unfortunate to single out US
government --even if it was intended as an example in the context of the ad
for US fellowship forwarded initially (it didn't even come across that way,
sorry.)

#6 Rather if this were to be done properly, it should be in the spirit of
sending the signal that we, CS, have taken the trouble to check that there
is nothing wrong, inappropriate or questionable about the ability of the
people we designate to be the custodians of our collective or send out to
be our voice or defend our interests to effectively do so. And this is not
because we are, by default, suspicious of each other, but just a simple
question of good practice and common sense (charity begins at home) with
regard to transparency. Again, check back #3.

#7 Now I understand the committee that might be put in charge to receive
and assess funding disclosures (maybe conflict of interests statements, if
needed, may go public?) would need some solid guidelines and principles to
rigorously but fairly assess when does a case become an issue, from which
point a case become subject to question. That is where some substantive
work will need to be done if one decides to pursue this route. I suspect
there might not be one size fits all here in terms of same set of criteria
with their single definition applied with the same weight for everybody
whatever their position on the "power grid" or the power matrix, to use
Anja's construct.

#8 It is also my understanding that the nature of the organization at hand
and the stake involved in its business/mission are normally a significant
part of the rationale for implementing the kind of procedure we are talking
about. As much as I am fully for the principle of transparency and
disclosure (while not jeopardizing the safety of anyone) I recognize the
case still remains to be made about IGC needing to implement this policy
--just because I'm not really sure what IGC is at this point in time. We
are not even being asked anymore to nominate a slate of candidates for
anything, other organizations are. Alternatively, individuals among us are
being approached directly with the proposition to take on one role or
another. So what are we, IGC --just a discussion list? Maybe that question
is worth answering before going forward with this policy (as far as IGC is
concerned).

Last reflection, this conversation makes me think, with a smile, that there
are basically three ways for having money: i) you sell something, goods or
services; ii) you tax someone else; or iii) someone chooses to give you the
money for whatever reason, possibly including a service you didn't even set
out to sell. In CS we do at least a little bit of the three --through grant
proposals or consultancy, member dues (albeit with less dire consequences
than defaulting on your income tax), and fundraising or donations CS orgs
receive. But it looks like the latter category is what supports the most CS
advocacy activities. That makes you think twice about where we actually are
on the power map. Maybe there is some solace to be found in the fact that
many of the sources CS orgs get money from are also part of CS, to begin
with: private citizens who once were industrious enough and with enough
ingenuity to become wealthy and set up foundations or other charity orgs.
Short of that, CS would perhaps have to receive the bulk of its money from
the people who tax other people.

Best,

Mawaki
p.s. I neither represent nor speak for any other than myself. I have
nothing to declare at the CS customs... Seriously, I have no funding source
at this point.


On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 3:14 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

>  On Nov 10, 2013, at 9:14 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   NRO - Network of Internet Regional Registries paid my Bali bill.
>
> And thank you (again) for being able to speak at session #145 "Importance
> of Regional
> Coordination in Internet Governance"...
>
>  It is quite reasonable for an IGF session organizer (the NRO in this
> case) to help defray
> travel costs for a panelist if need be; the alternative would definitely
> limit the range of
> views available during these discussions.
>
>  FYI,
> /John
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20131110/ce84c7ce/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