Think this is too strong a stick to wave around now, but it might be needed down the line. Let’s explore how we might root out or mediate corruption within the #EU, particularly in relation to processes like the #NGI funding programs.
Some recent examples from an #EU #NGI meeting:
Meeting link: NGI Next Steps
You can find similar behaviours in most NGI and EU-funded project meetings.
- Example 1: The disappearing public input
A horizontal public #BBB (BigBlueButton) online meeting was held. While BBB by default allows all participants access to a shared notepad, in this session the organizers had disabled access. This was likely done by a moderator acting on the assumption that it was “the right thing to do.”
Result: All public contributions were lost in the transitory chat. The only lasting record of the meeting was the hidden private notepad, invisible to the public by design.
- Example 2: The biased note-taker in a breakout session
In a breakout session, the chair (who is likely a perfectly nice person outside this context) took notes solely based on her own agenda, completely ignoring input from participants. I was (non-directly) rude about this. She became confused and attempted—poorly—to integrate other input, but it was clearly not part of the plan.
Q: Should we have remained silent and allowed her notes—and those from a few other #mainstreaming figures—to become the only official record of the session?
A: Absolutely not.
We need to compost this crap, not add to it. Most of the time, people don’t stop this kind of corrupt process. We need to start doing that more.
What’s at stake? The #NGI has tens of millions of euros at stake in its upcoming funding rounds.
It’s clear that subtle manipulation of meeting records can easily shift the outcomes of who gets funded. Yes, this is basic corruption.
This is basic journalism, and while it’s unlikely anyone would be prosecuted—since most participants are so arrogant they don’t realize they are engaging in corruption—public exposure could damage careers and act as a brake on systemic abuse.
What should be funded? NGI should be funding a tech platform or group specifically tasked with transparency monitoring like this. It’s a powerful stick to wave—and even if we don’t use it immediately, we should have it ready.
I’ll be drafting a project outline soon here: https://unite.openworlds.info/Open-Media-Network/openwebgovernancebody/wiki/Corruption