[governance] [bestbits] Civil society transparency
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jun 5 06:18:22 EDT 2015
On Friday 29 May 2015 07:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Replying just to the IGC list in respect of the suggestion that the
> IGC could host this McCarthy Committee on civil society funding and
> transparency, I doubt that there is any consensus that it should do
> this, and the IGC cannot act in its absence.
>
> I for one cannot imagine a scenario in which this would not do much
> more harm than good. There had already been much negative fallout from
> JNC members interrogating others on this list and the Best Bits lists
> by about their funding and demanding they take particular
> accountability and transparency measures. We could not withstand
> another such inquisition without a foundation of mutual trust and
> respect, which frankly will take much time to rebuild, beginning with
> an adjustment in attitude from the inquisitioners.
Jeremy
I made a straight forward proposal for a simplest possible, voluntary,
transparency initiative for the civil society groups involved in the IG
area. I also pointed out that because of both (1) the even higher stakes
involved in the multi-stakeholder governance structures, and (2) the
highly contested (and invested) geo politics of the area, such an
initiative is especially important in this area. I also pointed that the
NetMundial statement as well as the UN report on IGF improvements
carries language which strongly points towards need for such transparency.
I further clearly proposed that some group(s) that have the confidence
of everyone in this area can manage the initiative. I, IT for Change or
JNC have no interest in managing it. I further volunteered to personally
help raise resources for it, that can be used by whichever entity we
collectively decide should anchor this project.
Further, I said that we can discuss different possible approaches to
such a voluntary transparency initiative - I suggested the EU's
transparency register as a model, Ian said we could explore alternative
possibilities ( I request him to elaborate but havent heard back), Becky
pointed to some resources and templates, which I am happy to go with,
although they are more complex than a simple 'interests/ objectives /
funding sources' kind of voluntary disclosure like the cited EU register
calls for, you yourselves cited a document about which too I expressed
openness to possibly treat as a basis for our further discussion...
Meanwhile Luca Belli published this excellent paper on
multistakeholderism
<http://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/heterostakeholder-cooperation-sustainable-internet-policymaking>
( I greatly encourage everyone to read it ) which also presents a basic
schema of declarations of interests and funding for actors involved in
IG space. The leads provided by this paper is one way we can take this
discussion and the proposed initiative forward.
However, instead of engaging on any of these lines, you continue to call
the proposal names (McCarthy-ism) and take the ad hominem line of
attacking the proposer rather than engage with the proposal.
(BTW, I do consider it - excuse the expression - rather shameful for
the co-convenor of a coalition to openly 'admit' that the basic problem
that is considered to have dogged the coalition - roughly, a sort of
ongoing conflict between two sides or groups, which I think is political
- has really been about one side seeking funds related transparency from
the office bearers of the coalition. Such statements belong to some
corrupt set ups in a forsaken under-developed place, not in a top global
coalition of civil society actors. On the other hand, your assertion
that before such demands can be made, the demand-makers have to learn to
behave and so on directly invites the analogy of a dictator who refuses
to hold elections because he claims that pro-democracy protests had gone
somewhat violent in some areas. We have been hearing such things for
centuries now. But it is incredulous that a person of your skills and
social position makes such statements in this era. )
Meanwhile, I have no expectations or claims from you as a person, but a
co-convenor of the Bestbits groups I may restate my request that I will
like to have some kind of official response on my proposal - or an
alternative transparency proposal for civil society groups - from the
Bestbits management.
thanks, and best regards,
parminder
>
> --
> Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Global Policy Analyst
> Electronic Frontier Foundation
> https://eff.org <https://eff.org/>
> jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>
> Tel: 415.436.9333 <tel:415.436.9333> ext 161
>
> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>
> On May 28, 2015, at 4:39 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Ian
>>
>> Responding to the two issues you raise.
>>
>> On Monday 25 May 2015 12:27 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>> Hi Parminder,
>>>
>>> Two issues in response to your suggestion.
>>>
>>> Firstly, the suggestion that CSCG do this. CSCG consists of five
>>> people who are pretty busy co-ordinating coalitions of CS
>>> organisations (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) and myself as an independent
>>> chair. The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society
>>> response and conduit when it comes to making civil society
>>> appointments to outside organisations. It has no staff, no funding,
>>> not even a formal charter. In order to address some of the issues
>>> it faces I have suggested from time to time that the membership be
>>> expanded to include say 3 more respected civil society people who
>>> are not formal representatives of coalitions of CS organisations.
>>> The last time I suggested this it was met with some strongly worded
>>> negative responses from JNC and I have not heard of any change of
>>> position on this. So for these reasons I don’t think CSCG is the
>>> right organisation to take on this task. Perhaps IGC?
>>
>> I suggested CSCG bec it has reps from major CS networks and so there
>> was a common ownership over what should be a commonly owned and
>> directed initiative so that there is scope of bias, and appropriate
>> avenues of recourse exist. I still think CSCG the right body for it,
>> but IGC would do as well. As for resources, let me make this blind
>> offer, I will try and raise resources for one person devoting her
>> half/ quarter time, who can be housed in a reputed org with a neutral
>> image, for this purpose. More resources are needed initially for
>> setting it up, but once set up it wont require much. I still do not
>> know from where id seek resources but I am confident that with so
>> much funds coming into the IG space someone somewhere would give a
>> few thousand dollars for overall transparency and accountability in
>> the sector. That should address and settle the resources argument in
>> terms of my proposal.
>>
>>>
>>> Secondly, I wonder how it would work in CS which has so many people
>>> who are basically acting as individuals rather than representatives
>>> of organisations. Many if not most of us also have non CS
>>> affiliations (eg membership of ISOC, business or governmental
>>> employees if we are cs volunteers, academic postings etc) so the
>>> “pure” CS rep is probably a bit hard to find. I am not sure what we
>>> would gain by having a register of all our multiple affiliations
>>> which would need regular updating to be of any use. I think we need
>>> to ensure our major coalitions (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) act
>>> transparently, and by and large I think they do. But I am not sure
>>> of the value of extending this to what is probably tens of thousands
>>> of members or organisations affiliated with these larger groups.
>>
>> Almost all CS transparency and accountability initiatives are
>> focussed on organisations and not individuals, bec of the obvious
>> reasons that the former have a greater role and impact. One may not
>> need such processes for individuals, other than perhaps when any
>> nominations or appointments are being on behalf of civil society , in
>> which case anyone would agree that some basic declarations should in
>> any case be necessary, and such simple and basic decelerations alone
>> are what my proposed initiative asks for.
>>
>>>
>>> Over to others to discuss. I am not opposed to the suggestion that
>>> something be done in this area, but I think we need to refine any
>>> such idea somewhat,
>>
>> Please give suggestions.
>>
>>> and if the aim is somehow to enhance CS credibility and transparency
>>> in this space, perhaps we should also discuss what other measures
>>> might also assist this.
>>
>> And for this as well.
>>
>> Thanks again. parminder
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>> *From:* parminder <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 24, 2015 3:31 PM
>>> *To:* Ian Peter <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com> ;
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>>> ; BestBitsList <mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> ;
>>> mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing
>>> space for the APC Community. <mailto:apc.forum at lists.apc.org>
>>> *Subject:* [governance] Civil society transparency
>>>
>>> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society
>>> Coordination Group (CSCG) ,
>>>
>>> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project,
>>> somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see
>>> http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do .
>>>
>>> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one
>>> for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil
>>> society which should set the highest example of transparency and
>>> accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on
>>> objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any,
>>> its funding, partners, and so on....
>>>
>>> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil
>>> society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG
>>> would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that
>>> there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being
>>> employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for
>>> openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan.
>>>
>>> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a
>>> group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether
>>> and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by
>>> with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have
>>> any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc.
>>>
>>> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an
>>> organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such
>>> organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of
>>> criteria.
>>>
>>> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the
>>> NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also
>>> recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the
>>> OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time
>>> we begin practising what we preach.
>>>
>>> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal..
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20150605/2f545b56/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