I fully agree with Roberto. Especially when he compared the 360 review with the candidates references. If the 360 review should go to the voters, the information given by the referees for each candidate should also be given to the voters too. I said on the call that the 360 review will be public if its given to the voters; I meant the risk of having it on the market place will increase dramatically. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Envoyé : mardi 17 décembre 2013 19:00 À : Roberto Gaetano Cc : 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'ALAC Working List' Objet : Re: [ALAC] Confidentiality 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 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)