European Internet Forum (EIF) is Dominated by American Corporations and Microsoft Lobbyists, Staff Take the Lead
A longtime reader (nearly 20 years!) wrote to inform us of the latest intervention in Europe. It's by the European Internet Forum (EIF), which contrary to its name is barely European*:
The reader explained to us that Microsoft is lobbying** the European Parliament via EIF, as this page shows by listing the affiliations (due 6 February 2025, i.e. tomorrow):
Well, it says "Francisco Mingorance, Counselor and Executive Secretary at CISPE (Cloud Infrastructure Services Providers in Europe)" and we've long explained - and also properly shown - that Mingorance is a Microsoft mole/operative (for many years already). We wrote about Mingorance in old articles such as [1, 2, 3, 4]. The other person named there isn't even a mere proxy/lobbyist of Microsoft but a direct Microsoft employee***.
Both cofounders of Microsoft are American, the company is run from the US, and it funded - or at least helped fund - the inauguration last month (albeit the one of "the wrecker"). Microsoft supported "the wrecker". So it's totally fine - even profits from - what goes on right now in the US.
Should the officials over here (UK) or the European Parliament pay attention to these dodgy, dishonest self-serving people****? They already break the law at the EPO. █
_____________
* Having spent some time around the site, it seems similar to OpenForum Europe, which represents boosters of software patents and puts that agenda in legislative papers/pipelines. FOSDEM has been similar in this regard [1, 2]. It's hosted in Europe, it ropes in many European attendees, but talks and booths are occupied by Americans, even important panel discussions get stacked by them.
** To briefly summarise what evidence there is that Microsoft is lobbying the European Parliament, one can see their submissions in public consultations (Americans telling Europeans what to do or European hires of an American company doing so), not just directly but also via known front groups of theirs (things with "Europe" in their name in particular). There are also political visits from Microsoft executives, but the contents of dialogues are private, contrary to those consultations that are ignored or dominated by the super-rich (and foreign). These front groups tilt outcomes, so pro bono volunteers and NGOs hardly stand a chance. This talk is just over a month old and its abstract says: "The European Commission is the executive branch of the European Union with the duty to uphold the law. The transparency of the Commission´s actions and decisions range from questionable to abysmal. Attempts by the public to access information are often thwarted. This talk will cover the Commission´s lack of transparency, challenges faced by the public in accessing information, Commission´s tactics and examples of the European Ombudsman´s interventions to improve the situation. Whether you are interested in ChatControl, AI or public procurement, this talk will have you covered."
*** The names can be misleading. "The "National" Technology Office is *Microsoft* and not a government agency," an associate reminds us, so "the misleading name is misleading" (by design). Microsoft gives roles or job titles to make its employees sound like Federal workers and even its divisions are named to obscure, confuse, steal legitimacy from the real things. It's like Microsoft's own "DOGE".
**** "Microsoft's lobbying behind the scenes via proxies enables them to do great harm with minimal scrutiny," an associate tells us, adding that we can "make a brief review of how they traditionally operate via proxies." In Europe we've shown how Microsoft weaponises the Business Software Alliance (BSA), BUSINESS-EUROPE, and Association for Competitive Technology (ACT). There are many more. This is very well documented. We spent a lot of time documenting a lot of these things.