Sorry, sent to the wrong list. R. 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
No problem Regards 2013/12/17 Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com>
Sorry, sent to the wrong list.
R.
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
-- Aida Noblia
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
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
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
Dear All, I too understand that confidentiality is a very important part of the process. However, I don’t see how anyone is expected to vote on someone they have little or no knowledge on why they should vote on that person. As a suggestion, would it be feasible to have a middle point in between full confidentiality and full disclosure? I would think of a “public version” of the candidates information to be posted or distributed for evaluation by those who will be voting and by the larger community that can direct the vote of their elected representatives maybe. As far as I understand when we talk about confidential information, there’s two strains within this information. The first being fully confidential and the second being fully public either because it has been disclosed publicly by the person to whom the information belongs or because it is in public knowledge or because it is accesible via legal public databases. Having said this, confidentiality could (should) remain on the strain of data effectively confidential but could (should), however, not be the same for public information related to the candidate. This might be a solution for both, avoiding the undermining of the process as a consequence of lack in confidentiality and at the same time providing confidence in that the votes will be casted in an informed fashion. Does it make sense? All the best, León El 18/12/2013, a las 12:05, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> escribió:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
To be clear, there will be abundant information made available about the candidates. The Board operates almost completely outside of public view and the issue in question is an evaluation by other Board members of how well the incumbent has performed. Alan At 18/12/2013 07:55 PM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote:
Dear All,
I too understand that confidentiality is a very important part of the process. However, I dont see how anyone is expected to vote on someone they have little or no knowledge on why they should vote on that person.
As a suggestion, would it be feasible to have a middle point in between full confidentiality and full disclosure? I would think of a public version of the candidates information to be posted or distributed for evaluation by those who will be voting and by the larger community that can direct the vote of their elected representatives maybe.
As far as I understand when we talk about confidential information, theres two strains within this information. The first being fully confidential and the second being fully public either because it has been disclosed publicly by the person to whom the information belongs or because it is in public knowledge or because it is accesible via legal public databases.
Having said this, confidentiality could (should) remain on the strain of data effectively confidential but could (should), however, not be the same for public information related to the candidate.
This might be a solution for both, avoiding the undermining of the process as a consequence of lack in confidentiality and at the same time providing confidence in that the votes will be casted in an informed fashion.
Does it make sense?
All the best,
León
El 18/12/2013, a las 12:05, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> escribió:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
On 12/18/2013 05:23 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
...The Board operates almost completely outside of public view...
Which is something that any board member is free to change without consent of the rest of the board. When I was on the board I published to the public a diary of the majority of actions I took as a board member. This diary described the issues, the inputs, my criteria, and my decision making process. I made a point of doing this only for myself; I did not describe the criteria, process, or arguments of other board members. That diary is still on-line: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/diary/index.htm Because board members are subject to considerable personable risk to their personal assets by virtue of sitting on a board of directors, such as ICANNs, their legal counsel[*] may well recommend that such a diary be kept, at least privately, in order to reduce the risk of liability. (Despite urban legend to the contrary, corporate E&O insurance can not and does not cover all risks.) [*] By-the-way, corporate counsel is most decidedly not a board member's own legal counsel. Corporate counsel's obligation is to the corporation not to the individual board member. No person should consider taking a seat on a board of directors without getting advice from their own legal counsel. --karl--
Dear all, having nothing (officially) to say on this list, I tend to agree with the arguments raised by Carlton and Leon. As most of you may know, I am a usually a strict proponent of privacy and data protection (incl. confidentiality in justified cases). In the given case, it's not a usual NomCom application and selection procedure or application for any other corporate enterprise position (with all confidentiality granted) but it's a selection for a - more or less - "public" position with a final electorate of over-seeable and known names of 20 people (15 ALAC reps and 5 RALO leaders) -- and only EURALO will conduct a broader consultation with its members to allow its chair a guided or directed vote (as we did in 2010 already, as an exception but not as a common rule, unfortunately). If I apply for any public or political position (not any job with a private enterprise), I need to expose myself to *public scrutiny* (and nobody is forced to do it). But if I do it, I cannot request procedures and rules of confidentiality which are usually applied for private enterprises and positions. Therefore IMO, these completely different *political* levels - public or "private" - shouldn't be mixed or confused and broader considerations, as suggested by Carlton and Leon, may apply. Kind regards, Wolf León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:55:
Dear All,
I too understand that confidentiality is a very important part of the process. However, I don’t see how anyone is expected to vote on someone they have little or no knowledge on why they should vote on that person.
As a suggestion, would it be feasible to have a middle point in between full confidentiality and full disclosure? I would think of a “public version” of the candidates information to be posted or distributed for evaluation by those who will be voting and by the larger community that can direct the vote of their elected representatives maybe.
As far as I understand when we talk about confidential information, there’s two strains within this information. The first being fully confidential and the second being fully public either because it has been disclosed publicly by the person to whom the information belongs or because it is in public knowledge or because it is accesible via legal public databases.
Having said this, confidentiality could (should) remain on the strain of data effectively confidential but could (should), however, not be the same for public information related to the candidate.
This might be a solution for both, avoiding the undermining of the process as a consequence of lack in confidentiality and at the same time providing confidence in that the votes will be casted in an informed fashion.
Does it make sense?
All the best,
León
El 18/12/2013, a las 12:05, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> escribió:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Dears all: IMHO:The problem seems to be between two rights as stated, the right to privacy and the right to information , transparency . There are laws that recognize both rights and there is a limit to be analyzed . There are called sensitive data , making the person himself , his privacy laws considered private data that can not be disclosed without the express consent of the person . Additional data are still being personal data and sensitive data can not be disclosed. These are data that are normally freely available in public records . The right to transparency is another right that must be present in this case : the data relating to the function or office held and are not data rate law data reserved. It is the right of every citizen of all data to let you know how people carry out their duties . The laws distinguish these types of data and in each case have to see what kind of data we are talking about and if they fall into one category or the other according to the laws . In general, it takes into account the purpose for which the data have been collected , the purpose for which you want to take knowledge of such data : no data that are necessary to know how the person may fulfill its function. Regards 2013/12/18 Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net>
Dear all,
having nothing (officially) to say on this list, I tend to agree with the arguments raised by Carlton and Leon. As most of you may know, I am a usually a strict proponent of privacy and data protection (incl. confidentiality in justified cases). In the given case, it's not a usual NomCom application and selection procedure or application for any other corporate enterprise position (with all confidentiality granted) but it's a selection for a - more or less - "public" position with a final electorate of over-seeable and known names of 20 people (15 ALAC reps and 5 RALO leaders) -- and only EURALO will conduct a broader consultation with its members to allow its chair a guided or directed vote (as we did in 2010 already, as an exception but not as a common rule, unfortunately).
If I apply for any public or political position (not any job with a private enterprise), I need to expose myself to *public scrutiny* (and nobody is forced to do it). But if I do it, I cannot request procedures and rules of confidentiality which are usually applied for private enterprises and positions. Therefore IMO, these completely different *political* levels - public or "private" - shouldn't be mixed or confused and broader considerations, as suggested by Carlton and Leon, may apply.
Kind regards, Wolf
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:55:
Dear All,
I too understand that confidentiality is a very important part of the process. However, I don’t see how anyone is expected to vote on someone they have little or no knowledge on why they should vote on that person.
As a suggestion, would it be feasible to have a middle point in between full confidentiality and full disclosure? I would think of a “public version” of the candidates information to be posted or distributed for evaluation by those who will be voting and by the larger community that can direct the vote of their elected representatives maybe.
As far as I understand when we talk about confidential information, there’s two strains within this information. The first being fully confidential and the second being fully public either because it has been disclosed publicly by the person to whom the information belongs or because it is in public knowledge or because it is accesible via legal public databases.
Having said this, confidentiality could (should) remain on the strain of data effectively confidential but could (should), however, not be the same for public information related to the candidate.
This might be a solution for both, avoiding the undermining of the process as a consequence of lack in confidentiality and at the same time providing confidence in that the votes will be casted in an informed fashion.
Does it make sense?
All the best,
León
El 18/12/2013, a las 12:05, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> escribió:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig _______________________________________________ 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
-- Aida Noblia
Dear all, I would like to support what Carlton and Leon have said. I am a strong supporter of privacy in many cases, but I really can't see enough justification in this case. If you're expected to vote on someone, then one should have all the relevant information to make best judgement. Regards, Rafid On 19 Dec 2013, at 07:23, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> wrote:
Dears all:
IMHO:The problem seems to be between two rights as stated, the right to privacy and the right to information , transparency . There are laws that recognize both rights and there is a limit to be analyzed . There are called sensitive data , making the person himself , his privacy laws considered private data that can not be disclosed without the express consent of the person . Additional data are still being personal data and sensitive data can not be disclosed. These are data that are normally freely available in public records . The right to transparency is another right that must be present in this case : the data relating to the function or office held and are not data rate law data reserved. It is the right of every citizen of all data to let you know how people carry out their duties . The laws distinguish these types of data and in each case have to see what kind of data we are talking about and if they fall into one category or the other according to the laws . In general, it takes into account the purpose for which the data have been collected , the purpose for which you want to take knowledge of such data : no data that are necessary to know how the person may fulfill its function.
Regards
2013/12/18 Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net>
Dear all,
having nothing (officially) to say on this list, I tend to agree with the arguments raised by Carlton and Leon. As most of you may know, I am a usually a strict proponent of privacy and data protection (incl. confidentiality in justified cases). In the given case, it's not a usual NomCom application and selection procedure or application for any other corporate enterprise position (with all confidentiality granted) but it's a selection for a - more or less - "public" position with a final electorate of over-seeable and known names of 20 people (15 ALAC reps and 5 RALO leaders) -- and only EURALO will conduct a broader consultation with its members to allow its chair a guided or directed vote (as we did in 2010 already, as an exception but not as a common rule, unfortunately).
If I apply for any public or political position (not any job with a private enterprise), I need to expose myself to *public scrutiny* (and nobody is forced to do it). But if I do it, I cannot request procedures and rules of confidentiality which are usually applied for private enterprises and positions. Therefore IMO, these completely different *political* levels - public or "private" - shouldn't be mixed or confused and broader considerations, as suggested by Carlton and Leon, may apply.
Kind regards, Wolf
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:55:
Dear All,
I too understand that confidentiality is a very important part of the process. However, I don’t see how anyone is expected to vote on someone they have little or no knowledge on why they should vote on that person.
As a suggestion, would it be feasible to have a middle point in between full confidentiality and full disclosure? I would think of a “public version” of the candidates information to be posted or distributed for evaluation by those who will be voting and by the larger community that can direct the vote of their elected representatives maybe.
As far as I understand when we talk about confidential information, there’s two strains within this information. The first being fully confidential and the second being fully public either because it has been disclosed publicly by the person to whom the information belongs or because it is in public knowledge or because it is accesible via legal public databases.
Having said this, confidentiality could (should) remain on the strain of data effectively confidential but could (should), however, not be the same for public information related to the candidate.
This might be a solution for both, avoiding the undermining of the process as a consequence of lack in confidentiality and at the same time providing confidence in that the votes will be casted in an informed fashion.
Does it make sense?
All the best,
León
El 18/12/2013, a las 12:05, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> escribió:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig _______________________________________________ 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
-- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ 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
Rafid A Y Fatani Eng. MA. Ph.D. (Exon) Policy and Stakeholder Relations Director ------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer This message and its attachments are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, please email the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Further, you should not disclose, copy, distribute or use this message and any attachments.
Totally agree with Carlton, Leon, and others. We are in the information society, we need to choose to be informed. Here we must apply the principle of transparency, because an election is meaningless without knowing who is chosen. The purpose of knowledge is to choose the right person for the job. Personal data will be required only necessary for the proper performance of their duties. 2013/12/19 Rafid A. Fatani <raf@sasiconsult.com>
Dear all,
I would like to support what Carlton and Leon have said. I am a strong supporter of privacy in many cases, but I really can't see enough justification in this case. If you're expected to vote on someone, then one should have all the relevant information to make best judgement.
Regards,
Rafid On 19 Dec 2013, at 07:23, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> wrote:
Dears all:
IMHO:The problem seems to be between two rights as stated, the right to privacy and the right to information , transparency . There are laws that recognize both rights and there is a limit to be analyzed . There are called sensitive data , making the person himself , his privacy laws considered private data that can not be disclosed without the express consent of the person . Additional data are still being personal data and sensitive data can not be disclosed. These are data that are normally freely available in public records . The right to transparency is another right that must be present in this case : the data relating to the function or office held and are not data rate law data reserved. It is the right of every citizen of all data to let you know how people carry out their duties . The laws distinguish these types of data and in each case have to see what kind of data we are talking about and if they fall into one category or the other according to the laws . In general, it takes into account the purpose for which the data have been collected , the purpose for which you want to take knowledge of such data : no data that are necessary to know how the person may fulfill its function.
Regards
2013/12/18 Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net>
Dear all,
having nothing (officially) to say on this list, I tend to agree with the arguments raised by Carlton and Leon. As most of you may know, I am a usually a strict proponent of privacy and data protection (incl. confidentiality in justified cases). In the given case, it's not a usual NomCom application and selection procedure or application for any other corporate enterprise position (with all confidentiality granted) but it's a selection for a - more or less - "public" position with a final electorate of over-seeable and known names of 20 people (15 ALAC reps and 5 RALO leaders) -- and only EURALO will conduct a broader consultation with its members to allow its chair a guided or directed vote (as we did in 2010 already, as an exception but not as a common rule, unfortunately).
If I apply for any public or political position (not any job with a private enterprise), I need to expose myself to *public scrutiny* (and nobody is forced to do it). But if I do it, I cannot request procedures and rules of confidentiality which are usually applied for private enterprises and positions. Therefore IMO, these completely different *political* levels - public or "private" - shouldn't be mixed or confused and broader considerations, as suggested by Carlton and Leon, may apply.
Kind regards, Wolf
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía wrote Wed, 18 Dec 2013 18:55:
Dear All,
I too understand that confidentiality is a very important part of the process. However, I don’t see how anyone is expected to vote on someone they have little or no knowledge on why they should vote on that person.
As a suggestion, would it be feasible to have a middle point in between full confidentiality and full disclosure? I would think of a “public version” of the candidates information to be posted or distributed for evaluation by those who will be voting and by the larger community that can direct the vote of their elected representatives maybe.
As far as I understand when we talk about confidential information, there’s two strains within this information. The first being fully confidential and the second being fully public either because it has been disclosed publicly by the person to whom the information belongs or because it is in public knowledge or because it is accesible via legal public databases.
Having said this, confidentiality could (should) remain on the strain of data effectively confidential but could (should), however, not be the same for public information related to the candidate.
This might be a solution for both, avoiding the undermining of the process as a consequence of lack in confidentiality and at the same time providing confidence in that the votes will be casted in an informed fashion.
Does it make sense?
All the best,
León
El 18/12/2013, a las 12:05, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com
escribió:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig _______________________________________________ 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
-- Aida Noblia _______________________________________________ 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
Rafid A Y Fatani Eng. MA. Ph.D. (Exon) Policy and Stakeholder Relations Director ------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer
This message and its attachments are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, please email the sender and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Further, you should not disclose, copy, distribute or use this message and any attachments.
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Aida Noblia
All I can say is I wish you had provided an answer. For my part, it must be fair to ask whether we have been well represented. How to do that, and of whom are harder questions Holly On 19/12/2013, at 5:05 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ 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
participants (11)
-
Aida Noblia -
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Holly Raiche -
Karl Auerbach -
León Felipe Sánchez Ambía -
Rafid A. Fatani -
Roberto Gaetano -
Vanda Scartezini -
Wolf Ludwig