Dear WG members and everyone: I have only one thing to say on this point : who can vote the best , if we restrict personal information about the candidates? Candidate know his/her information is essential to be elected/ voted. Agree on the other with Wolf, Leon & Carlton. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre Enviado desde mi dispositivo inalámbrico BlackBerry® -----Original Message----- From: Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net> Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 01:45:32 To: <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Confidentiality 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