Hi Dilip, FWIW I saw that NRS had endorsed candidates and asked the org about its stance. The Society replied: Public endorsements are a common and accepted practice in democratic societies worldwide. It is standard for organizations, interest groups, or media outlets to endorse candidates independently as an expression of support – without any suggestion that the candidates orchestrated or pre-approved those endorsements.NRS further described its endorsements as follows:
One-Way Support: An endorsement is essentially a one-way statement: it signals our support for candidates who, in our assessment, align with NRS’s values and the changes we believe are needed. This does not imply a formal partnership or that the candidates are “running on” an NRS platform. Many of us are familiar with newspapers endorsing political candidates; those endorsements are made by the editorial boards, not by the candidates, and they often occur without the candidate soliciting or approving them beforehand. The principle is the same here. NRS also pointed out that endorsement without any engagement or agreement is "a standard democratic exercise of free expression and association. We are voicing support for candidates we admire. This practice does not violate any norms; on the contrary, it reflects NRS’s engagement in the APNIC community as an interested member organization. We hope to contribute constructively to the election discourse by doing so."Clearly NRS endorsed candidates at arm's length. I believe NRS endorsed without expectations and without seeking approval.I appreciate the NRS taking the time to clarify its position. However IMHO the org stil falls short of practising the openness and accountability it preaches as it has failed on several occasions to respond to my questions on its governance, membership, and ownership.Simon.
_______________________________________________ APNIC-talk - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
