Fwd: R: Confidentiality
Dear all, an IT problem caused that this message from Roberto Gaetano, Chair of the At-Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee never arrived on the ALAC working list. You may have seen my and Tijani's replies, but not Roberto's message, which must have been a bit confusing. Please be so kind to find the two emails below from Roberto, for your information. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: R: Confidentiality Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:02:21 +0100 From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> CC: 'ICANN At-Large Staff' <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, 'ALAC Working List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Following up on this thread, having also read all the comments, I would like to clarify a few things. Then, the ball will be in the hands of ALAC Leadership for decisions. The original point was about access to the 360 review, not to the candidates EoI. On the other hand, the EoIs are meant to be information available to all people involved in the decision, not just the BCEC: therefore there is no confidentiality issue there. The point was that the owner of the 360 review is the ICANN Board, and that the Chair of the BGC had agreed to give the document to BCEC, provided that all the members sign a non-disclosure agreement to commit to confidentiality. Therefore the BCEC will not provide this information to other parties. Whether philosophically the ALAC voting members have or not the right of accessing this information is not a BCEC problem, but a matter of an agreement between ALAC and the BGC. If the ICANN Board agrees, the BGC will give access to this information under the conditions that will be negotiated. Personally, I believe that a non-disclosure agreement would be necessary, but it is just my opinion. The good news is that the ICANN Board is at fault as it has not provided yet the document, which is extremely unlikely, at this point in time, to reach the BCEC before we produce the slate of candidates. As observed by Tijani, who chairs the committee who owns the schedule, no extension to the deadline will be authorized. This means that we have a pretty good reason for asking that the full voting body has access to the 360 review, because the BCEC did not have it on time to take it into account. The bad news is that the reference letters and the interviews with the referees, that have been recorded are also part of the documentation on which the BCEC has also committed to confidentiality. For instance, one referee has explicitly stated that he/she would not have accepted to provide information if there was any chance of leaking to a wider audience than the BCEC. If the ALAC voting members believe that reference checking is an essential part of the evaluation and vote, I recommend that action is taken as soon as possible to contact all referees and ask their explicit authorization for releasing the reference letters and/or recordings to a wider audience. Be aware that I expect some refusals, and in this case you need to decide how to weight the not accessible references. I know that this is a sticky issue that will cause a lot of traffic, but the sooner there is a decision, the better it is. For my part, I can confirm that I will remain committed to the non-disclosure paper that I have signed. Cheers, Roberto *Da:*Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] *Inviato:* martedì 17 dicembre 2013 18:20 *A:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl@gih.com) *Cc:* 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'ALAC Working List' *Oggetto:* Confidentiality 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
Dear all, following up on Roberto's message below and to summarise the status so far: The Board Governance Committee (BGC) who run the 360 reviews on current Board members whose term is due to expire will not be able to provide its report to the BCEC in time before the BCEC selects its slate of candidates. The results of the review of our current Board member will therefore need to be shared amongst a wider set of people, very likely to be the complete electorate - hence the ALAC members & Regional Leaders. 20 people. As the BCEC asked its members to sign a confidentiality agreement, I think it is also fair to ask the ALAC and Regional Leaders to sign a confidentiality agreement. I have never seen such a review, so do not know what we are speaking about. I have asked the BGC and have asked the Chair of the Board and both have told me that the way we use that information is to the discretion of the ALAC Chair *but* it would indeed be sensible to share it only with those who will need to know - out of respect for the private nature of some of the contents of the review. So I'd suggest the signing of a confidentiality agreement by *all* voters. Alternatively, you could also decide individually to NOT sign a confidentiality agreement and then not receive the information. Considering an informed voter is better than an uninformed voter, I would recommend against this. Comments? Questions? Kind regards, Olivier On 21/01/2014 02:02, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear all,
an IT problem caused that this message from Roberto Gaetano, Chair of the At-Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee never arrived on the ALAC working list. You may have seen my and Tijani's replies, but not Roberto's message, which must have been a bit confusing.
Please be so kind to find the two emails below from Roberto, for your information. Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: R: Confidentiality Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:02:21 +0100 From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> CC: 'ICANN At-Large Staff' <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, 'ALAC Working List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Following up on this thread, having also read all the comments, I would like to clarify a few things.
Then, the ball will be in the hands of ALAC Leadership for decisions.
The original point was about access to the 360 review, not to the candidates EoI. On the other hand, the EoIs are meant to be information available to all people involved in the decision, not just the BCEC: therefore there is no confidentiality issue there.
The point was that the owner of the 360 review is the ICANN Board, and that the Chair of the BGC had agreed to give the document to BCEC, provided that all the members sign a non-disclosure agreement to commit to confidentiality. Therefore the BCEC will not provide this information to other parties. Whether philosophically the ALAC voting members have or not the right of accessing this information is not a BCEC problem, but a matter of an agreement between ALAC and the BGC. If the ICANN Board agrees, the BGC will give access to this information under the conditions that will be negotiated. Personally, I believe that a non-disclosure agreement would be necessary, but it is just my opinion.
The good news is that the ICANN Board is at fault as it has not provided yet the document, which is extremely unlikely, at this point in time, to reach the BCEC before we produce the slate of candidates. As observed by Tijani, who chairs the committee who owns the schedule, no extension to the deadline will be authorized. This means that we have a pretty good reason for asking that the full voting body has access to the 360 review, because the BCEC did not have it on time to take it into account.
The bad news is that the reference letters and the interviews with the referees, that have been recorded are also part of the documentation on which the BCEC has also committed to confidentiality. For instance, one referee has explicitly stated that he/she would not have accepted to provide information if there was any chance of leaking to a wider audience than the BCEC.
If the ALAC voting members believe that reference checking is an essential part of the evaluation and vote, I recommend that action is taken as soon as possible to contact all referees and ask their explicit authorization for releasing the reference letters and/or recordings to a wider audience. Be aware that I expect some refusals, and in this case you need to decide how to weight the not accessible references.
I know that this is a sticky issue that will cause a lot of traffic, but the sooner there is a decision, the better it is. For my part, I can confirm that I will remain committed to the non-disclosure paper that I have signed.
Cheers,
Roberto
*Da:*Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] *Inviato:* martedì 17 dicembre 2013 18:20 *A:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl@gih.com) *Cc:* 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'ALAC Working List' *Oggetto:* Confidentiality
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
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Dear Olivier, Thanks for this update. I also agree that an informed voter is better than an uninformed one. Therefore I too agree with signing a confidentiality agreement in order to be able to receive the information related to the candidates for the Board. Now, on the questions side. How will we be able to comment on the candidates with the ALSs on our region and orient our vote if we are indeed under a confidentiality agreement? I can see some alternatives in order to avoid breaching the agreement: 1.- Comment on the candidates virtues without telling the name of the candidate. 2.- Letting ALSs know the list of persons postulated and asking for feedback. 3.- Asking the ALSs to blindly trust on our judgement and once the election ends, be open to comment on the decision by each voter. I apologize if I’m stating the obvious here but it’s the first time I go through this process. All the best, León El 20/01/2014, a las 19:47, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> escribió:
Dear all,
following up on Roberto's message below and to summarise the status so far:
The Board Governance Committee (BGC) who run the 360 reviews on current Board members whose term is due to expire will not be able to provide its report to the BCEC in time before the BCEC selects its slate of candidates.
The results of the review of our current Board member will therefore need to be shared amongst a wider set of people, very likely to be the complete electorate - hence the ALAC members & Regional Leaders. 20 people. As the BCEC asked its members to sign a confidentiality agreement, I think it is also fair to ask the ALAC and Regional Leaders to sign a confidentiality agreement.
I have never seen such a review, so do not know what we are speaking about. I have asked the BGC and have asked the Chair of the Board and both have told me that the way we use that information is to the discretion of the ALAC Chair *but* it would indeed be sensible to share it only with those who will need to know - out of respect for the private nature of some of the contents of the review.
So I'd suggest the signing of a confidentiality agreement by *all* voters. Alternatively, you could also decide individually to NOT sign a confidentiality agreement and then not receive the information. Considering an informed voter is better than an uninformed voter, I would recommend against this. Comments? Questions?
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 21/01/2014 02:02, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear all,
an IT problem caused that this message from Roberto Gaetano, Chair of the At-Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee never arrived on the ALAC working list. You may have seen my and Tijani's replies, but not Roberto's message, which must have been a bit confusing.
Please be so kind to find the two emails below from Roberto, for your information. Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: R: Confidentiality Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:02:21 +0100 From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> CC: 'ICANN At-Large Staff' <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, 'ALAC Working List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Following up on this thread, having also read all the comments, I would like to clarify a few things.
Then, the ball will be in the hands of ALAC Leadership for decisions.
The original point was about access to the 360 review, not to the candidates EoI. On the other hand, the EoIs are meant to be information available to all people involved in the decision, not just the BCEC: therefore there is no confidentiality issue there.
The point was that the owner of the 360 review is the ICANN Board, and that the Chair of the BGC had agreed to give the document to BCEC, provided that all the members sign a non-disclosure agreement to commit to confidentiality. Therefore the BCEC will not provide this information to other parties. Whether philosophically the ALAC voting members have or not the right of accessing this information is not a BCEC problem, but a matter of an agreement between ALAC and the BGC. If the ICANN Board agrees, the BGC will give access to this information under the conditions that will be negotiated. Personally, I believe that a non-disclosure agreement would be necessary, but it is just my opinion.
The good news is that the ICANN Board is at fault as it has not provided yet the document, which is extremely unlikely, at this point in time, to reach the BCEC before we produce the slate of candidates. As observed by Tijani, who chairs the committee who owns the schedule, no extension to the deadline will be authorized. This means that we have a pretty good reason for asking that the full voting body has access to the 360 review, because the BCEC did not have it on time to take it into account.
The bad news is that the reference letters and the interviews with the referees, that have been recorded are also part of the documentation on which the BCEC has also committed to confidentiality. For instance, one referee has explicitly stated that he/she would not have accepted to provide information if there was any chance of leaking to a wider audience than the BCEC.
If the ALAC voting members believe that reference checking is an essential part of the evaluation and vote, I recommend that action is taken as soon as possible to contact all referees and ask their explicit authorization for releasing the reference letters and/or recordings to a wider audience. Be aware that I expect some refusals, and in this case you need to decide how to weight the not accessible references.
I know that this is a sticky issue that will cause a lot of traffic, but the sooner there is a decision, the better it is. For my part, I can confirm that I will remain committed to the non-disclosure paper that I have signed.
Cheers,
Roberto
*Da:*Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] *Inviato:* martedì 17 dicembre 2013 18:20 *A:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl@gih.com) *Cc:* 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'ALAC Working List' *Oggetto:* Confidentiality
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
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- 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...)
Dear Leon, you raise a number of questions which are very valid indeed and I'll let others express their point of view on them. But in the meantime, I wanted to clarify one thing: the information I am speaking about is the 360 review of the current Board member selected by At-Large. As for the process, all candidates that have filed an SOI for the position have agreed that their application will be published and can be consulted by everyone. On the other hand, any note from referees was done in confidence so only members of the BCEC had access to those references. As is customary, referee notes will not be published. Kind regards, Olivier On 21/01/2014 03:01, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Olivier,
Thanks for this update. I also agree that an informed voter is better than an uninformed one. Therefore I too agree with signing a confidentiality agreement in order to be able to receive the information related to the candidates for the Board.
Now, on the questions side. How will we be able to comment on the candidates with the ALSs on our region and orient our vote if we are indeed under a confidentiality agreement?
I can see some alternatives in order to avoid breaching the agreement:
1.- Comment on the candidates virtues without telling the name of the candidate.
2.- Letting ALSs know the list of persons postulated and asking for feedback.
3.- Asking the ALSs to blindly trust on our judgement and once the election ends, be open to comment on the decision by each voter.
I apologize if I’m stating the obvious here but it’s the first time I go through this process.
All the best,
León
El 20/01/2014, a las 19:47, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> escribió:
Dear all,
following up on Roberto's message below and to summarise the status so far:
The Board Governance Committee (BGC) who run the 360 reviews on current Board members whose term is due to expire will not be able to provide its report to the BCEC in time before the BCEC selects its slate of candidates.
The results of the review of our current Board member will therefore need to be shared amongst a wider set of people, very likely to be the complete electorate - hence the ALAC members & Regional Leaders. 20 people. As the BCEC asked its members to sign a confidentiality agreement, I think it is also fair to ask the ALAC and Regional Leaders to sign a confidentiality agreement.
I have never seen such a review, so do not know what we are speaking about. I have asked the BGC and have asked the Chair of the Board and both have told me that the way we use that information is to the discretion of the ALAC Chair *but* it would indeed be sensible to share it only with those who will need to know - out of respect for the private nature of some of the contents of the review.
So I'd suggest the signing of a confidentiality agreement by *all* voters. Alternatively, you could also decide individually to NOT sign a confidentiality agreement and then not receive the information. Considering an informed voter is better than an uninformed voter, I would recommend against this. Comments? Questions?
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 21/01/2014 02:02, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear all,
an IT problem caused that this message from Roberto Gaetano, Chair of the At-Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee never arrived on the ALAC working list. You may have seen my and Tijani's replies, but not Roberto's message, which must have been a bit confusing.
Please be so kind to find the two emails below from Roberto, for your information. Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: R: Confidentiality Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:02:21 +0100 From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> CC: 'ICANN At-Large Staff' <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, 'ALAC Working List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Following up on this thread, having also read all the comments, I would like to clarify a few things.
Then, the ball will be in the hands of ALAC Leadership for decisions.
The original point was about access to the 360 review, not to the candidates EoI. On the other hand, the EoIs are meant to be information available to all people involved in the decision, not just the BCEC: therefore there is no confidentiality issue there.
The point was that the owner of the 360 review is the ICANN Board, and that the Chair of the BGC had agreed to give the document to BCEC, provided that all the members sign a non-disclosure agreement to commit to confidentiality. Therefore the BCEC will not provide this information to other parties. Whether philosophically the ALAC voting members have or not the right of accessing this information is not a BCEC problem, but a matter of an agreement between ALAC and the BGC. If the ICANN Board agrees, the BGC will give access to this information under the conditions that will be negotiated. Personally, I believe that a non-disclosure agreement would be necessary, but it is just my opinion.
The good news is that the ICANN Board is at fault as it has not provided yet the document, which is extremely unlikely, at this point in time, to reach the BCEC before we produce the slate of candidates. As observed by Tijani, who chairs the committee who owns the schedule, no extension to the deadline will be authorized. This means that we have a pretty good reason for asking that the full voting body has access to the 360 review, because the BCEC did not have it on time to take it into account.
The bad news is that the reference letters and the interviews with the referees, that have been recorded are also part of the documentation on which the BCEC has also committed to confidentiality. For instance, one referee has explicitly stated that he/she would not have accepted to provide information if there was any chance of leaking to a wider audience than the BCEC.
If the ALAC voting members believe that reference checking is an essential part of the evaluation and vote, I recommend that action is taken as soon as possible to contact all referees and ask their explicit authorization for releasing the reference letters and/or recordings to a wider audience. Be aware that I expect some refusals, and in this case you need to decide how to weight the not accessible references.
I know that this is a sticky issue that will cause a lot of traffic, but the sooner there is a decision, the better it is. For my part, I can confirm that I will remain committed to the non-disclosure paper that I have signed.
Cheers,
Roberto
*Da:*Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] *Inviato:* martedì 17 dicembre 2013 18:20 *A:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl@gih.com) *Cc:* 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'ALAC Working List' *Oggetto:* Confidentiality
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
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- 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...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
A couple of comments on all of the comments below, from the perspective of one of the designers of the selection process and the person who drafted the current rules of procedure (with the details of the content being decided by a far wider group). - When we talk about the "electorate", it should be just that and not go into detail. Although the generic form of the electorate is the ALAC plus RALO chairs, it is quite possible that some of these may be replaced for the purposes of the votes. - Although we expect there to be significant ALS consultation, the majority of the voters ultimately have to exercise their own judgement, so although not being able to share the contents of the assessment is perhaps unfortunate, it is perhaps not crucial. The exception is for RALOs that may decide to have the ALSs direct the vote of their Chair. In that case, I don't have an easy way out. - I am confused and troubled by the comments in Roberto's message about disclosing confidential references to the BCEC. These references were requested with the understanding that they were to be confidential. I would have a LOT of trouble making them public, or even asking a referee if they were willing to have their input made public. This is simply not the kind of thing that should be done mid-stream. - To Leon's first two points, there is only one possible candidate being referred to here, and that is the current Seat 15 holder, if he should choose to run again. - On Leon's last point, these votes are completely confidential, and how a elector votes will not be made public (just as is the case with all ALAC-related votes on individuals). Alan At 20/01/2014 09:01 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Olivier,
Thanks for this update. I also agree that an informed voter is better than an uninformed one. Therefore I too agree with signing a confidentiality agreement in order to be able to receive the information related to the candidates for the Board.
Now, on the questions side. How will we be able to comment on the candidates with the ALSs on our region and orient our vote if we are indeed under a confidentiality agreement?
I can see some alternatives in order to avoid breaching the agreement:
1.- Comment on the candidates virtues without telling the name of the candidate.
2.- Letting ALSs know the list of persons postulated and asking for feedback.
3.- Asking the ALSs to blindly trust on our judgement and once the election ends, be open to comment on the decision by each voter.
I apologize if Im stating the obvious here but its the first time I go through this process.
All the best,
León
El 20/01/2014, a las 19:47, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> escribió:
Dear all,
following up on Roberto's message below and to summarise the status so far:
The Board Governance Committee (BGC) who run the 360 reviews on current Board members whose term is due to expire will not be able to provide its report to the BCEC in time before the BCEC selects its slate of candidates.
The results of the review of our current Board member will therefore need to be shared amongst a wider set of people, very likely to be the complete electorate - hence the ALAC members & Regional Leaders. 20 people. As the BCEC asked its members to sign a confidentiality agreement, I think it is also fair to ask the ALAC and Regional Leaders to sign a confidentiality agreement.
I have never seen such a review, so do not know what we are speaking about. I have asked the BGC and have asked the Chair of the Board and both have told me that the way we use that information is to the discretion of the ALAC Chair *but* it would indeed be sensible to share it only with those who will need to know - out of respect for the private nature of some of the contents of the review.
So I'd suggest the signing of a confidentiality agreement by *all* voters. Alternatively, you could also decide individually to NOT sign a confidentiality agreement and then not receive the information. Considering an informed voter is better than an uninformed voter, I would recommend against this. Comments? Questions?
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 21/01/2014 02:02, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear all,
an IT problem caused that this message from Roberto Gaetano, Chair of the At-Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee never arrived on the ALAC working list. You may have seen my and Tijani's replies, but not Roberto's message, which must have been a bit confusing.
Please be so kind to find the two emails below from Roberto, for your information. Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: R: Confidentiality Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:02:21 +0100 From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> CC: 'ICANN At-Large Staff' <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, 'ALAC Working List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Following up on this thread, having also read all the comments, I would like to clarify a few things.
Then, the ball will be in the hands of ALAC Leadership for decisions.
The original point was about access to the 360 review, not to the candidates EoI. On the other hand, the EoIs are meant to be information available to all people involved in the decision, not just the BCEC: therefore there is no confidentiality issue there.
The point was that the owner of the 360 review is the ICANN Board, and that the Chair of the BGC had agreed to give the document to BCEC, provided that all the members sign a non-disclosure agreement to commit to confidentiality. Therefore the BCEC will not provide this information to other parties. Whether philosophically the ALAC voting members have or not the right of accessing this information is not a BCEC problem, but a matter of an agreement between ALAC and the BGC. If the ICANN Board agrees, the BGC will give access to this information under the conditions that will be negotiated. Personally, I believe that a non-disclosure agreement would be necessary, but it is just my opinion.
The good news is that the ICANN Board is at fault as it has not provided yet the document, which is extremely unlikely, at this point in time, to reach the BCEC before we produce the slate of candidates. As observed by Tijani, who chairs the committee who owns the schedule, no extension to the deadline will be authorized. This means that we have a pretty good reason for asking that the full voting body has access to the 360 review, because the BCEC did not have it on time to take it into account.
The bad news is that the reference letters and the interviews with the referees, that have been recorded are also part of the documentation on which the BCEC has also committed to confidentiality. For instance, one referee has explicitly stated that he/she would not have accepted to provide information if there was any chance of leaking to a wider audience than the BCEC.
If the ALAC voting members believe that reference checking is an essential part of the evaluation and vote, I recommend that action is taken as soon as possible to contact all referees and ask their explicit authorization for releasing the reference letters and/or recordings to a wider audience. Be aware that I expect some refusals, and in this case you need to decide how to weight the not accessible references.
I know that this is a sticky issue that will cause a lot of traffic, but the sooner there is a decision, the better it is. For my part, I can confirm that I will remain committed to the non-disclosure paper that I have signed.
Cheers,
Roberto
*Da:*Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] *Inviato:* martedì 17 dicembre 2013 18:20 *A:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl@gih.com) *Cc:* 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'ALAC Working List' *Oggetto:* Confidentiality
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
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Dear All, I can get the need for information of the contents of the reference letters and they do not need to be shared publicly. However, what does need to be shared is full disclosure in instances where current ALAC members may have personally signed reference letters for those that are currently seeking to be on that seat #15 This would simply be in keeping with the spirit of Accountability and Transparency as per good corporate governance. At the very least the list of the candidates should be made known and prior to seating these candidates in place, (too late now but for next time when the position becomes vacant), there needs to be a clear criteria in the minds of the wider community that candidates must meet and also performance deliverables so that there is a measure of accountability to this important constituency - the At Large. At some stage, I hope that the systems will mature where all documents (referees/candidates) become public to enable the wider community to share their views and perspectives on candidates. This is where Leon's suggestions are wise. Nevertheless, we will rely on the wisdom of the ALAC to make the selection but urge ALAC to choose wisely. For now, every best wish for 2014! Sala On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
A couple of comments on all of the comments below, from the perspective of one of the designers of the selection process and the person who drafted the current rules of procedure (with the details of the content being decided by a far wider group).
- When we talk about the "electorate", it should be just that and not go into detail. Although the generic form of the electorate is the ALAC plus RALO chairs, it is quite possible that some of these may be replaced for the purposes of the votes.
- Although we expect there to be significant ALS consultation, the majority of the voters ultimately have to exercise their own judgement, so although not being able to share the contents of the assessment is perhaps unfortunate, it is perhaps not crucial. The exception is for RALOs that may decide to have the ALSs direct the vote of their Chair. In that case, I don't have an easy way out.
- I am confused and troubled by the comments in Roberto's message about disclosing confidential references to the BCEC. These references were requested with the understanding that they were to be confidential. I would have a LOT of trouble making them public, or even asking a referee if they were willing to have their input made public. This is simply not the kind of thing that should be done mid-stream.
- To Leon's first two points, there is only one possible candidate being referred to here, and that is the current Seat 15 holder, if he should choose to run again.
- On Leon's last point, these votes are completely confidential, and how a elector votes will not be made public (just as is the case with all ALAC-related votes on individuals).
Alan
At 20/01/2014 09:01 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear Olivier,
Thanks for this update. I also agree that an informed voter is better than an uninformed one. Therefore I too agree with signing a confidentiality agreement in order to be able to receive the information related to the candidates for the Board.
Now, on the questions side. How will we be able to comment on the candidates with the ALSs on our region and orient our vote if we are indeed under a confidentiality agreement?
I can see some alternatives in order to avoid breaching the agreement:
1.- Comment on the candidates virtues without telling the name of the candidate.
2.- Letting ALSs know the list of persons postulated and asking for feedback.
3.- Asking the ALSs to blindly trust on our judgement and once the election ends, be open to comment on the decision by each voter.
I apologize if I’m stating the obvious here but it’s the first time I go through this process.
All the best,
León
El 20/01/2014, a las 19:47, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> escribió:
Dear all,
following up on Roberto's message below and to summarise the status so far:
The Board Governance Committee (BGC) who run the 360 reviews on current Board members whose term is due to expire will not be able to provide its report to the BCEC in time before the BCEC selects its slate of candidates.
The results of the review of our current Board member will therefore need to be shared amongst a wider set of people, very likely to be the complete electorate - hence the ALAC members & Regional Leaders. 20 people. As the BCEC asked its members to sign a confidentiality agreement, I think it is also fair to ask the ALAC and Regional Leaders to sign a confidentiality agreement.
I have never seen such a review, so do not know what we are speaking about. I have asked the BGC and have asked the Chair of the Board and both have told me that the way we use that information is to the discretion of the ALAC Chair *but* it would indeed be sensible to share it only with those who will need to know - out of respect for the private nature of some of the contents of the review.
So I'd suggest the signing of a confidentiality agreement by *all* voters. Alternatively, you could also decide individually to NOT sign a confidentiality agreement and then not receive the information. Considering an informed voter is better than an uninformed voter, I would recommend against this. Comments? Questions?
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 21/01/2014 02:02, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear all,
an IT problem caused that this message from Roberto Gaetano, Chair of the At-Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee never arrived on the ALAC working list. You may have seen my and Tijani's replies, but not Roberto's message, which must have been a bit confusing.
Please be so kind to find the two emails below from Roberto, for your information. Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: R: Confidentiality Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:02:21 +0100 From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> CC: 'ICANN At-Large Staff' <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, 'ALAC Working List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Following up on this thread, having also read all the comments, I would like to clarify a few things.
Then, the ball will be in the hands of ALAC Leadership for decisions.
The original point was about access to the 360 review, not to the candidates EoI. On the other hand, the EoIs are meant to be information available to all people involved in the decision, not just the BCEC: therefore there is no confidentiality issue there.
The point was that the owner of the 360 review is the ICANN Board, and that the Chair of the BGC had agreed to give the document to BCEC, provided that all the members sign a non-disclosure agreement to commit to confidentiality. Therefore the BCEC will not provide this information to other parties. Whether philosophically the ALAC voting members have or not the right of accessing this information is not a BCEC problem, but a matter of an agreement between ALAC and the BGC. If the ICANN Board agrees, the BGC will give access to this information under the conditions that will be negotiated. Personally, I believe that a non-disclosure agreement would be necessary, but it is just my opinion.
The good news is that the ICANN Board is at fault as it has not provided yet the document, which is extremely unlikely, at this point in time, to reach the BCEC before we produce the slate of candidates. As observed by Tijani, who chairs the committee who owns the schedule, no extension to the deadline will be authorized. This means that we have a pretty good reason for asking that the full voting body has access to the 360 review, because the BCEC did not have it on time to take it into account.
The bad news is that the reference letters and the interviews with the referees, that have been recorded are also part of the documentation on which the BCEC has also committed to confidentiality. For instance, one referee has explicitly stated that he/she would not have accepted to provide information if there was any chance of leaking to a wider audience than the BCEC.
If the ALAC voting members believe that reference checking is an essential part of the evaluation and vote, I recommend that action is taken as soon as possible to contact all referees and ask their explicit authorization for releasing the reference letters and/or recordings to a wider audience. Be aware that I expect some refusals, and in this case you need to decide how to weight the not accessible references.
I know that this is a sticky issue that will cause a lot of traffic, but the sooner there is a decision, the better it is. For my part, I can confirm that I will remain committed to the non-disclosure paper that I have signed.
Cheers,
Roberto
*Da:*Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] *Inviato:* martedì 17 dicembre 2013 18:20 *A:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl@gih.com) *Cc:* 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'ALAC Working List' *Oggetto:* Confidentiality
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
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
-- 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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)
Hi Oliver et al It is a shame that the Board embarked on such a high risk exercise that has impacted on the responsibilities of others in this election process. How frustrating. Nevertheless, in relation to access to information about the slate of candidates, I believe that those of us who will be involved in the election should be as informed as possible, and should sign a confidentiality agreement, as a matter of course, before we see ANY information about candidates. Maureen -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Monday, 20 January 2014 3:47 p.m. To: ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: R: Confidentiality Dear all, following up on Roberto's message below and to summarise the status so far: The Board Governance Committee (BGC) who run the 360 reviews on current Board members whose term is due to expire will not be able to provide its report to the BCEC in time before the BCEC selects its slate of candidates. The results of the review of our current Board member will therefore need to be shared amongst a wider set of people, very likely to be the complete electorate - hence the ALAC members & Regional Leaders. 20 people. As the BCEC asked its members to sign a confidentiality agreement, I think it is also fair to ask the ALAC and Regional Leaders to sign a confidentiality agreement. I have never seen such a review, so do not know what we are speaking about. I have asked the BGC and have asked the Chair of the Board and both have told me that the way we use that information is to the discretion of the ALAC Chair *but* it would indeed be sensible to share it only with those who will need to know - out of respect for the private nature of some of the contents of the review. So I'd suggest the signing of a confidentiality agreement by *all* voters. Alternatively, you could also decide individually to NOT sign a confidentiality agreement and then not receive the information. Considering an informed voter is better than an uninformed voter, I would recommend against this. Comments? Questions? Kind regards, Olivier On 21/01/2014 02:02, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear all,
an IT problem caused that this message from Roberto Gaetano, Chair of the At-Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee never arrived on the ALAC working list. You may have seen my and Tijani's replies, but not Roberto's message, which must have been a bit confusing.
Please be so kind to find the two emails below from Roberto, for your information. Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: R: Confidentiality Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:02:21 +0100 From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> CC: 'ICANN At-Large Staff' <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, 'ALAC Working List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Following up on this thread, having also read all the comments, I would like to clarify a few things.
Then, the ball will be in the hands of ALAC Leadership for decisions.
The original point was about access to the 360 review, not to the candidates EoI. On the other hand, the EoIs are meant to be information available to all people involved in the decision, not just the BCEC: therefore there is no confidentiality issue there.
The point was that the owner of the 360 review is the ICANN Board, and that the Chair of the BGC had agreed to give the document to BCEC, provided that all the members sign a non-disclosure agreement to commit to confidentiality. Therefore the BCEC will not provide this information to other parties. Whether philosophically the ALAC voting members have or not the right of accessing this information is not a BCEC problem, but a matter of an agreement between ALAC and the BGC. If the ICANN Board agrees, the BGC will give access to this information under the conditions that will be negotiated. Personally, I believe that a non-disclosure agreement would be necessary, but it is just my opinion.
The good news is that the ICANN Board is at fault as it has not provided yet the document, which is extremely unlikely, at this point in time, to reach the BCEC before we produce the slate of candidates. As observed by Tijani, who chairs the committee who owns the schedule, no extension to the deadline will be authorized. This means that we have a pretty good reason for asking that the full voting body has access to the 360 review, because the BCEC did not have it on time to take it into account.
The bad news is that the reference letters and the interviews with the referees, that have been recorded are also part of the documentation on which the BCEC has also committed to confidentiality. For instance, one referee has explicitly stated that he/she would not have accepted to provide information if there was any chance of leaking to a wider audience than the BCEC.
If the ALAC voting members believe that reference checking is an essential part of the evaluation and vote, I recommend that action is taken as soon as possible to contact all referees and ask their explicit authorization for releasing the reference letters and/or recordings to a wider audience. Be aware that I expect some refusals, and in this case you need to decide how to weight the not accessible references.
I know that this is a sticky issue that will cause a lot of traffic, but the sooner there is a decision, the better it is. For my part, I can confirm that I will remain committed to the non-disclosure paper that I have signed.
Cheers,
Roberto
*Da:*Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] *Inviato:* martedì 17 dicembre 2013 18:20 *A:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl@gih.com) *Cc:* 'ICANN At-Large Staff'; 'ALAC Working List' *Oggetto:* Confidentiality
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
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe e+(ALAC)
-- 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)
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Maureen Hilyard -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro