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

[Meryem Marzouki <marzouki@ras.eu.org>]

Hi all,

I think all the information sent to the nomcom should be made public,  
or at least known to IGC members. i.e.:
"- Name
- Name of nominator (or self)
- Nationality
- Country of Residence
- Gender
- Short Bio relevant to IG
- Why the (self)nominee is a good choice for the MAG"
And any additional information if received.

I cannot even imagine that strong and necessary arguments like  
transparency of the process may be balanced by things like "fear of  
loss of face" (if so, then just decline any nomination!) or "allows  
nomcom to reject a famous person who would seem unrejectable if her  
name was published" (so, there are "unrejectable" persons? Who  
however would be rejected, if only nomcom members can make sure they  
wont be killed for doing this?).

Also, I may have missed some explanation, but what would be the  
result of the nominating process ? A consensus on the 15 final names,  
an ordered list of all nominated people, classified by the number of  
"votes" rceived from individual members of the nomcom ? i.e. How the  
nomcom would proceed?
If there is an ordered list of nominated people, then it must be  
published too.

This is important since this process will only produce people  
recommended by the IGC, while other groups/coalitions/orgs will  
provide their own recommendations.

Best,
Meryem

Le 9 avr. 06 à 07:07, Avri Doria a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> Looking for a sense of the caucus on this issue.
>
> to explain:  In putting this nomcom thing together one hole i left in
> the procedural definition was whether the nominations statement that
> were sent in to the nomcom should be published on not.
>
> The two alternatives are pretty obvious:
>
> (1) do as we did in the WGIG process, and publish them on a website
>          (ref. http://www.net-gov.org/wgig/nominees.php)
>
> (2) do as other nomcoms do and keep them private to the nomcom
>
> I thought option (1) was obvious as we have based this process on
> what was done in WGIG with the exception that we added a method for
> selecting members of nomcom.
>
> But since I had neglected to mention that the nomination statements
> would be published, I felt I had to confirm with each of the few
> (very few incidentally) nominations that had come in on whether they
> were willing for their nominations to be published on the web site
> being set up for this purpose.  In this dialogue the question was
> posed.  This caused me to start consulting both with the members of
> the nomcom and with some members of the caucus and I have gotten a
> mixed message.
>
>
> Some of the reasons I am hearing (very much in my own words):
>
> - transparency (1)
> - might limit nominations due to fear of loss of face (2)
> - allows nomcom to reject a famous person who would seem unrejectable
> if her name was published (2)
> - subjects people's nomination statements to a giggle test (1)
> - might be easier for people from  one culture to do then those from
> another (2)
> - demonstrates the thick skin necessary for someone in such a role (1)
>
> I am about to send out another reminder for the nomination process.
> In this I will ask the nominees to indicate if they are willing to
> have their statement published on a web site.  But I will wait to do
> so until i have seen which way he consensus in this groups tends.
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance