[governance] NomCom nomination statments - To publish or not to Publish

[Avri Doria]

hi,

If i understand you correctly you object to people having the ability  
to decide for themselves whether they want their info published?  You  
think it was obvious that the info would be published.  I thought so  
too, but as is usually the case when I assume something, i was  
wrong.  Several people indicated that this had not been their  
expectation.

Personally I see this as a compromise between transparency and  
privacy.  But if you have a better way to balance the two, please  
suggest something.

I would also welcome an extended conversation on how one balances  
transparency and privacy. Personally I often find the line between  
the two difficult to judge, especially when taking multicultural  
expectations into account.

thanks

a.



On 12 apr 2006, at 17.16, Meryem Marzouki wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm confident that all candidates (self) nominated to the nomcom will
> agree on having their info published.
>
> However, if only for a question of principle, I have to say that this
> proposal below is something I cannot even figure out. It's not a good
> start, at least.
>
> I understand that this was not made explicit from the beginning.
> Perhaps because it seemed obvious?
> And what about the nomcom, then? It was not made clear that its
> members have to sign a non disclosure agreement before
> volunteering... OK, I trust them, they all are nice people. But it
> was not made clear either that they would have to disregard the fact,
> if ever this happens, that candidates who would like to be
> recommended by the IGC to the IGF have nevertheless chosen to hide
> this, even to IGC members, unless they are eventually chosen. Would
> the publication of information be an additional criteria for the
> nomcom? After all, the nomcom will use its own criteria.
>
> Maybe we should have asked the FBI to put the nomcom members in a
> safe place with no contact with anyone before the start of the
> process...
>
> Next time we should discuss what 'individual privacy' means. And what
> 'transparency' means. Among a long list of other issues.
>
> Meryem
>
> Le 12 avr. 06 à 21:53, Avri Doria a écrit :
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The few public comments sent to the list seem to indicate a
>> preference for publishing names.  Since this was not made clear to
>> candidates before the process, I plan to respect individual privacy
>> by asking each candidate whether they accept having their information
>> published.
>>
>> The IGC nomcom will therefore publish the names, information and  
>> bios/
>> statements of nominees according to the following process:
>>
>> Assuming that they, or their nominator, have not already given
>> permission to publish, I send send email to each nominee individually
>> asking for permission to publish their information.
>>
>> - if they agree, their info will be published
>> - if the don't agree i will ask for permission to at least list their
>> names, nationality and gender.
>> - to account for any who don't agree to have their names and basic
>> information published, we will include a count of unpublished
>> candidates on the web site.
>>
>> hope this works for the caucus.
>>
>> thanks
>> a.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance