We will be having our first ever elections to the Policy Committee on June 5. Three members will be elected to the committee including one who will be elected as Campaign Manager and one who will be elected as Head of Policy.

Nominations close on Tuesday 31 May at 9pm

For more information, see the Policy Committee Elections wiki page
For information about voting, see Howto: Vote.
For information about nominating yourself or someone else, see Howto: Nominate.

List of Candidates:
Candidates for Policy Committee (3 seats)

• Calder, James (james g)
• Kingsbury, Bruce (edisoncarter)
• McPherson, Andrew (kiwipeso)
• Rausch, Mathias (Matt)

Candidates for Campaign Manager (1 position)
(no candidates)

Candidates for Head of Policy (1 position)

• Kingsbury, Bruce (edisoncarter)
• McPherson, Andrew (kiwipeso)

I would like to nominate myself as a candidate for a position on the Policy Committee (but not Head of Policy or Campaign Manager). I have been a member of the Pirate Party since 30 January, and committed some fairly substantial edits to several wiki pages (including the Policy page) on 25 and 28 February, from which I've had some positive feedback.

Because I work non-standard hours, I think I probably wouldn't be suitable as Head of Policy or Campaign Manager, however because policy development itself is generally a relatively slow process not requiring immediate decisions, I think I may still be able to usefully contribute to the Policy Committee in spite of this (although I realise it would not be an ideal situation).

I don't see copyright as a moral right of authors. I do think copyright can serve a useful purpose as a mechanism for advancing the public good by promoting the creation of works (similar to tax), although I think it is only morally defensible to the extent that:
* it is no more restrictive than the public democratically decide they are willing to endure, and
* it is not restrictive to an extent beyond what is helpful for promoting the public good, and
* it does not infringe on private personal liberty.

In deciding how far PPNZ policy should go in attempting to reform the law (in any area), I think it needs to be considered to what extent proposed law reform is:
* morally defensible, and
* likely to be politically achievable, and
* supported by PPNZ members, and
* consistent with the international Pirate Party movement.

I believe I have decent written communication skills, and would like to help out.

Thanks,
james g.

I would like to nominate myself for the head of policy position on the policy committee.
I have been involved with the the pirate party for 2 years, I have an extensive background in computers and programming. I am currently involved in a proven secure P2P network which will be released for free, open sourced and backwards compatible with bittorrent.
I have ripped and converted the original constitution from the aussie pirate party.

I have enough time to do this around my job, and I have the contacts in parliament to get our views heard.

The content of this posting was obsolete and has been removed for privacy reasons.

I have self nominated for the position of Head of Policy because I want to be involved in keeping the party focussed and making sure that our policy is expressed accurately to the public.

I've been involved with the party since the beginning, finding web hosting and setting up the original phpbb discussion forum that got us started. I am absolutely passionate about Linux, the internet, and similar 'disruptive technologies' and I think it is very important that society does not regulate these technologies out of existence to protect old business models, before we have a chance to see what new opportunities they create.

I'd like to see some more commentary from the candidates (especially Edison and Andrew) about what they would like to see in PPNZ's policies on the following issues:
* Online Privacy and Anonymity
* Net Censorship
* the TPPA and Free Trade Agreements in general
* Open Source governance
Additionally, I'd like to see some general thoughts in relation to PPNZ's adoption of a broad (ie. "non-core") policy platform.

Online Privacy and Anonymity. I'd like to see New Zealand adopt "do not track" for those third-party advertisers and the like that follow your surfing habits to deliver adverts.
I'd like some genuine Anonymity online, to that end, I'm developing a very secure anonymous routing network program, which will be backwards compatible with bittorrent (unlike TOR)
Net Censorship: I don't agree that our internet connections should be filtered, as this leaves the ability to censor political information, wikileaks, etc in the hands of the DIA, the Censor's office and anyone who can hack the blacklist.

TPPA/ACTA & FTAs: Having been an active participant in public ACTA last year, I know that it is our sovereign rights that are being traded away for the sake of accepting what US lobbyists want.
I don't accept that we should be asked to do away with pharmac just because US drug companies have lobbied US politicians, nor do I accept that Hollywood should get to re-write our copyright act.
There is evidence of this on wikileaks, if you wish to search for it in the US embassy cables.

Open-Source governance: I think this is something the Pirate Party alone does, and it is doubtful that other parties do it. To that end, if we get into parliament, I would be happy to go with any reasonable policy developed through our wiki, or burrowed from other Pirate Parties.
That includes basic core policies like requiring government documents and websites to have cross platform compatibility and work with open source standards just as well as proprietary programs.
I would require that all software developed for government use have source code available to the government at no extra charge.

I think that for any non-core policy to be adopted, it has to fit in with the pirate wheel of principles : as long as it fits within the principles, then I see no barrier to adoption of non-core policy.

Privacy (and by extension Anonymity) are both something we need to be fighting for. Net censorship is something I'm strongly against. This all comes under the same umbrella to me that if someone's doing something in private and nobody else is aware of it (other than by going out of their way to pry) or has no reason to complain about it then it should not be a crime.

Free trade agreements are something I'm personally against. As far as pirate party policy, they're something that concern us if things are being negotiated behind closed doors (lack of transparency) or if they're negotiating matters that involve privacy, copyright or patents. And lately it seems that such agreements are often forged behind closed doors and always involve discussions about 'stronger' anti-terrorism measures (weaker privacy) and 'stronger' copyright and patent law.

Open Source governance is something I was strongly in favor of, but I'm still refining my view. I think perhaps the best answer would be a combination of 'open source goal-setting' combined with evidence-based policy to create the actual laws that attempt to meet those goals.

Non-core policy I've always thought we should leave open. Let's get support based on our core policy and not scare potential voters away by having policies they might not agree with on every minor issue.