Um, IMHO, the issue is a lot more textured that it is being discussed. I briefly referred on the chat at the ALAC conference but seems to me we have a concern regarding two things, equity and accountability. If - and only if - the report on the Board member's stewardship is a normal part of accountability framework to the constituency that member represents on the board, then it is arguable that accountability does not just rest with the Chair but also the voters who elected that member to the Board. If the Board Member is seeking re-election to represent that constituency, it is arguable that 'what have you done for us lately?' is both a rational and desirable question for that candidate. This is not just for opponents to ask. And in context, any relevant information, even that arguably anecdotal, is part of the discourse. We cannot contest the compelling interest for sentient voters to be informed. In the same breath, one could not argue away the general At-Large interest in selecting the Board member it deems best located to project and defend their shared interest. The matter now rests with our collective sense of equity. Is it fair under all circumstances to release unfavourable specific information about a candidate to the electorate when such information cannot be developed or accessed for all candidates? Reasonable men and women can agree to disagree. But if the choice is between accountability and equity, the question is, which of these principles trumps? -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Vanda Scartezini <vanda@uol.com.br> wrote:
I also agree fully with Roberto and the points raised are very relevant. Merry Christmas to whom this is an important date to celebrate. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
On 12/17/13, 17:01, "Christopher Wilkinson" <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Good evening:
May I say that having served on both the ICANN Nominating Committee and on the BCEC, I agree with and support the constraints and concerns described by Roberto here.
Regards to you all, and with the Season's Greetings
CW
Da: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com] Inviato: martedì 17 dicembre 2013 12:20 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
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org