Dear Roberto, apologies for this - you must have been muted because I did not hear you. Your comments are well received and I note your last point regarding confidentiality and the hypothesis of having BCEC members share information. The discussion is open. Kind regards, Olivier On 17/12/2013 17:19, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I was trying unsuccessfully to ask for the floor after the comments from Tijani and Alan, maybe my line was muted, then I had to go back to my meeting, where I am right now.
I would like to go on record saying that:
· I share completely what Tijani has said -- as a matter of fact we had discussed and agreed in Buenos Aires our common position. The wider the number of people that have access to a piece of information, the higher the risk that we have leaking data, and from that on the step to the information being public is very small.
· BCEC has taken the issue of confidentiality very seriously, I have consulted with the NomCom Chair and with ICANN General Counsel and then decided to require the non-disclosure to be signed by all, before giving access to confidential material.
· If the principle of access to the current Board member evaluation by the voters, although being a theoretically valid question, brings as a corollary the question on why should the voters also not have access to the reference letters for all candidates. You see that, step by step, we can undermine completely the confidentiality, and therefore the trust in the process.
· The ALAC can decide to open up to a larger audience but I would strongly recommend, if you do so, to at least require a non-disclosure similar to the one that BCEC members have signed. I would also encourage you to look for advice by General Counsel.
· The hypothesis of having BCEC members to informally share information with the regional voters is in open violation of the confidentiality agreement signed by BCEC members.
Thanks,
Roberto
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html