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

[Mawaki Chango]

Hi,

I will have to agree with Meryem and Taran here. IGC is not the only
place candidates are nominated, and anyone can send their self
nomination directly to the IGF secretariat. So, if someone if seeking
the endorsement or support of any constituency (no matter if s/he is
not self-nominated as long as s/he is willing to accept her/his
nomination), then it is quite a matter of politeness to state this
and introduce her/himself to that constituency. That is the principle
(I'm not saying anyone who would have any reason not to publish would
be impolite, but then again, there are other options for
candidating).

Though I'm not sure where the issue would come from, whether from the
short bio or from the rest of the information requested (or even,
would it be that a person could be in a professional situation where
s/he wouldn't like to be known that s/he's planning to take up this
responsibility??? hope he won't be doing the job "clandestinely!"),
anyway, if the privacy issue is with the bio as I first thought, all
what is requested is profiling elements related one way or the other
to IG.

Mawaki

--- Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> wrote:

> 
> Le 12 avr. 06 à 23:34, Avri Doria a écrit :
> 
> > hi,
> >
> > If i understand you correctly you object to people having the
> ability
> > to decide for themselves whether they want their info published?
> 
> Not at all, Avri. And I would fight for their fundamental right to 
> 
> privacy be respected, in such a case.
> I object - or more exactly, I find unbelievable - that individuals,
>  
> running into a process of candidating for recommendation by a group
>  
> of people (or in its name, I mean here the IGC), refuse to disclose
>  
> to this group of people the very information on which their  
> recommendation would be decided, and to even disclose the simple
> fact  
> that they are candidating.
> The fact that the choice (I'm careful of not using the word  
> 'election') has been delegated to a nomcom shouldn't matter here.  
> And, BTW, it's really putting the nomcom members in a difficult  
> situation to ask them to decide on non public information. This may
>  
> lead to suspicion, and they don't deserve that.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Personally I see this as a compromise between transparency and
> > privacy.
> 
> I cannot agree with you here since since I don't think it's a
> matter  
> of privacy (see above). It's only a matter of transparency. So,  
> normally, there is no need to find a balance.
> It's only a way to work out a situation where something has been  
> forgotten in the conditions of the process. And it's by no mean
> your  
> fault since no one added this condition when the whole process was 
> 
> presented. People who thought, like you and me, that it was
> obvious,  
> had no reason to add this. But what about the others ?
> 
> > But if you have a better way to balance the two, please
> > suggest something.
> 
> I can only suggest common sense, but not sure this works:)
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Maybe next time (specially if drinking this delicious Danish
> 'little  
> grey' beverage:). I mean, not during this process. And when it's an
>  
> actual question of privacy, yes, of course it's difficult to judge,
>  
> and decision is generally made on a case by case basis. In the
> media  
> sector, there has been for long a lot of discussion (I mean, true  
> wars) on how to balance transparency (and right of the public to  
> information) with privacy. I'm not sure it's the right list to  
> discuss this.
> 
> Meryem
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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